Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

Ordered,
That, with effect from the beginning of the next Session of Parliament, the following Standing Order be made:—
`27A—(1) Subject to paragraph (8) below, in the case of a Bill authorising the carrying out of works the nature and extent of which are specified in the Bill on land so specified, there shall be deposited on or before 4th December in the Private Bill Office and at the Public Departments at which copies of the Bill are required to the deposited under Standing Order 39, either
(a) a copy or copies (as specified by paragraph (2) below) of an environmental statement containing, in relation to the works authorised by the Bill, the information set out in Schedule 3 to the Town and Country Planning (Assessment of Environmental Effects) Regulations 1988 (referred to below as "Schedule 3") or such of that information as the Secretary of State may in any particular case direct, or
(b) a copy or copies (as so specified) of a direction by the Secretary of State that no such statement is necessary in relation to the works authorised by the Bill.
(2) The number of copies required to be deposited under paragraph (1)(a) or (b) above shall be three in the case of a deposit at the Department of the Environment and one in any other case.
(3) Where any such works authorised by a Bill relate to two or more distinct projects each project may be treated separately for the purposes of paragraph (1) above; and the references in sub-paragraphs (a) and (b) of that paragraph to the works authorised by the Bill shall accordingly be construed, where the paragraph applies separately to each project, as references to the works comprised in that project.
(4) Notwithstanding any direction given as mentioned in paragraph (1)(a) above, any environmental statement of which copies are deposited under this Order shall contain the summary (referred to below as "the non-technical summary") required by paragraph (2)(e) and, where material, paragraph 4 of Schedule 3.
(5) Where the Secretary of State has given a direction as mentioned in paragraph (1)(a) above, a copy of the direction shall be deposited with every copy of the environmental statement deposited under paragraph (1)(b) above shall be accompanied by a statement by the Secretary of State of his reasons for giving the direction.
(6) Copies of every environmental statement deposited under this Order shall be made available for inspection, and for sale at a reasonable price, on and after 4th December, at the offices at which copies of the Bill are required to be made available under Standing Order 4A; and there shall also be made available separately on and after that date at those offices, for inspection and for sale at a reasonable price, copies of the non-technical summary.
(7) The reference to Schedule 3 in this Order is a reference to that Schedule as amended from time to time and includes a reference to the corresponding provision of any regulations which re-enact the Town and Country Planning (Assessment of Environmental Effects) Regulations 1988, with or without amendment; and references to particular paragraphs of Schedule 3 shall be construed accordingly.

(8) This Order does not require the deposit of copies of an environmental statement in relation to any works for which planning permission has been granted.'.—[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]

[See Mr. Bennett's question in columns 1106–7 of Official Report, 14 March.]

EXPLANATORY MEMORANDA

Ordered,
That, with effect from the beginning of the next Session of Parliament, Standing Order 38 (Deposit of copies of bill in Vote Office and Private Bill Office) be amended as follows:—
Line 5, at end add—
'(2) There shall be attached to every copy of a Bill—

(a) delivered under this Standing Order,
(b) deposited, delivered or sent under any of the Standing Orders following this Order,
(c) made available for inspection and sale under Standing Order 4A,

a printed memorandum describing the Bill generally and, subject to paragraph (3) below, every clause in the Bill.

(3) Related clauses may be dealt with together in the memorandum and it shall not be necessary to describe clauses providing only for the short title, commencement, interpretation, extent or costs of promotion of the Bill.'.—[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]

COMMITTEES ON OPPOSED BILLS

Ordered,
That the following Amendments to Standing Orders be made:—
Standing Order 120 (Declaration by members of committee on opposed bill), line 10, after 'group' insert 'that I recognise my obligation to attend every meeting of the committee;'
Standing Order 122 (Absence of chairman or members of committee on opposed bill), line 7, leave out from `House' to end of line 11.—[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]

OPPOSED BUSINESS (CONSIDERATION AND THIRD READING)

Ordered,
That with effect from beginning of the next Session of Parliament—
A. The following Standing Order be made:
'204A. When an order of the day has been read for the consideration or further consideration, as amended, of a private bill set down by direction of the Chairman of Ways and Means at Seven o'clock, the Question, That the Bill, as amended, be now considered (Or be now further considered) shall not be put: but (unless the Chairman of Ways and Means names a future day for the consideration or further consideration of the bill, or a motion is made to recommit the bill in whole or in part), the House
(l) shall forthwith proceed to consider any amendments proposed on consideration of the bill which have been selected by Mr. Speaker; and
(2) may, if there are no such amendments or when the amendments have been disposed of, proceed to the third reading of the Bill, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing order 205 (Notice of third reading.)'
B. Standing Order 205 (Notice of third reading) be amended by inserting, in line 1, at the beginning, `Subject to the provisions of S.O. 204A (Opposed business (Consideration and Third Reading)).'.—[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]

OPPOSED BUSINESS (LORDS AMENDMENTS)

ordered,
That, with effect from the beginning of the next Session of Parliament, the following Standing Order be made:
'208A. When an order of the day has been read for consideration or further consideration of Lords Amendments


to a Private Bill set down by direction of the Chairman of Ways and Means at Seven o'clock, the question, That the Lords Amendments be now considered (or be now further considered) shall not be put; but (unless the Chairman of Ways and Means names a future day for the consideration or further consideration of the Lords Amendments) the House shall forthwith proceed to consider the same.'.—[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]

QUORUM OF JOINT COMMITTEE ON CONFIRMATION BILL OR SPECIAL PROCEDURE ORDER

Ordered,
That the following Amendments to Standing Orders be made:—
Standing Order 229 (Constitution of joint committee on confirmation bill), line 7, at end add—
'(2) If any member of the committee of this House is prevented from continuing his attendance, the joint committee may, with the consent of all parties, continue its sitting in his absence, provided that the number of the committee of this House be not less than two; but if the consent of any party is withheld, the joint committee shall adjourn and shall not resume its sittings in the absence of such member without leave of this House.'.
Standing Order 243 (Joint committees on petitions), line 51, leave out from 'two' to 'but' in line 52.—[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]

TABLE OF FEES

Ordered,
That the following Table of Fees to be charged at the House of Commons shall apply to Bills for which petitions are deposited, Provisional Order Confirmation Bills presented, and Special Procedure Orders laid before Parliament, in the next Session of Parliament and thereafter.

I—FEES TO BE PAID BY THE PROMOTERS OF A PRIVATE BILL

On the First Reading of the Bill £2,500

Following the Third Reading of the Bill £2,500

The promoters of Personal Bills brought from the Lords may be charged one-twentieth of the preceding fees.

The promoters of Bills relating to charitable, religious, educational, literary or scientific purposes whereby no private profit or advantage is derived, and of Bills other than Bills promoted by local authorities from which the promoter appears unlikely to derive substantial personal or corporate gain, may be charged one quarter of the preceding fees.

II—FEES TO BE PAID BY PETITIONERS AND MEMORIALISTS

On presentation of any Petition relating to a Private Bill or of any Memorial complaining that the Standing Orders have not been complied with, provided that no Petitioner or Memorialist shall be charged more than once under this head in respect of any one Bill £20

III—FEES TO BE PAID BY APPLICANTS FOR AND PETITIONERS AGAINST A PROVISIONAL ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL

On the Second Reading of a Bill to confirm one or more Provisional Orders, other than a Bill to confirm an Order or Orders under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936, the applicants shall be charged a fee of £2,500.

On the deposit of each Petition £20

IV—FEES TO BE PAID FOR PROCEEDINGS ON A SPECIAL PROCEDURE ORDER

On appearance before a Joint Committee on a Special Procedure Order, an applicant (other than a Minister) shall be charged a fee of £1,250.

On the deposit of each Petition or Counter-Petition, or copy of either £10

IV—FEES TO BE PAID ON THE TAXATION OF COSTS ON PRIVATE LEGISLATION

For each £100 of any Bill of Costs allowed by the Taxing Officer £1—[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Oral Answers to Questions — FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

South Africa

Mr. John Carlisle: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on sanctions against South Africa.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mrs. Lynda Chalker): The international community is increasingly recognising that the continued application of sanctions will not help the peaceful abolition of apartheid. South Africa's political transformation needs urgently to be underpinned by economic growth. With the political process now irreversible—a point reinforced by the tabling of legislation yesterday—economic sanctions should be lifted as soon as possible.

Mr. Carlisle: In the week that the English rugby team hopes to win the five-nations championship and consequently the grand slam, will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity to seize the initiative and abandon all forms of sporting sanctions against South Africa? Would she care to remind the electorate of Neath that the prospective Labour candidate in the forthcoming by-election used to spread tintacks on rugby pitches and made his political career by disrupting rugby matches against South Africa? The electors in that lovely part of the world, who are rugby lovers, should remember that when they vote.

Mrs. Chalker: My hon. Friend has made his point about Neath extremely well and I can add nothing to it. The Government aim to restore normal sporting contacts with South Africa as soon as possible. We believe that sporting contacts should be resumed where and as soon as the sports bodies become integrated. The key is to build on the Commonwealth Foreign Ministers agreement of 16 February that those bodies that achieve unity should be recognised by the international community. Perhaps we can then all enjoy the kind of competition in sport, particularly in rugby, which I know we shall.

Mr. Robert Hughes: While I welcome the statement of intention by President de Klerk, is it not the case that very few political prisoners have yet been released, very few exiles have yet returned home, no one has yet received an indemnity from prosecution as promised a year ago last February and that negotiations for a peaceful change have yet to start? Given all that, would not it be better if the Government continued to put pressure on the South African Government to make progress instead of resting on rather vague promises and very little real action?

Mrs. Chalker: The hon. Gentleman should find out what is happening. The first large groups of exiles, 97 of them, returned on 7 March. They were members of the African National Congress from Lusaka. More are due to return from Zambia and Tanzania, and other groups as well, as the process speeds up. With regard to the hon. Gentleman's other point, President de Klerk's target to remove racially-based restrictions on the tenure of land, which he announced in a White Paper and about which legislation was tabled yesterday, seems to us to be making

good progress. I know from my own discussions with him that he intends it to be brought through in the months ahead, and no later.

Sir George Gardiner: Since the South African Government are acting to remove all racially based legislation from their statute book, does my right hon. Friend agree that it is in the interests of all South Africans, especially black South Africans, that we put all talk of sanctions behind us and concentrate instead on how we can build the social and industrial investment that will underpin the new South African democracy?

Mrs. Chalker: My hon. Friend is right. The real inhibition to progress at the moment—it is serious—is an internal sanction—that of violence. It concerns the leadership of the ANC and of Inkatha, and they are trying very hard to get their own supporters not to follow the path of violence. As my hon. Friend says, it is vital to get new investment into South Africa so that the people there may have the benefit of it in terms of jobs, job experience and education. Those opportunities have been missing for black South Africans for far too long.

Mr. Robertson: Why is it that, despite the manifest success that sanctions pressure has had for change on the South African Government, our Government continue to remain out of step with everybody? At the Commonwealth Ministers meeting that our Government chose not to attend, the European Community Foreign Ministers and the United Nations sanctions committee believed that sanctions pressure should not be lifted until the legislation is enacted, not just tabled. Why must we be the only Government in the world to believe that the firm smack of appeasement is the way to deal with South Africa?

Mrs. Chalker: I am surprised at the hon. Gentleman. He knows full well that ever since 1986 we have not been part of the Commonwealth Foreign Ministers meetings. It is not just the United Kingdom that has been saying that sanctions should be lifted and that new investment should be encouraged. The European Community was unanimous that we should lift bans on the import of iron and steel and of Krugerrands when President de Klerk tabled legislation to repeal the Group Areas Act. On the Commonwealth, the many discussions that I have had over the past three months tell me full well that the Commonwealth is anxious to restore normal relations and that the southern front-line states have upped their trade with South Africa in no small measure since February 1990. That is to be encouraged.

Middle East

Mr. Anthony Coombs: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he will meet the Secretary-General of the United Nations to discuss the middle east.

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Douglas Hurd): I have no plans to meet the United Nations Secretary-General in the immediate future, but we remain in close touch.

Mr. Coombs: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, although the war is now over, recent events in Iraq have shown that the peace and stability referred to in resolution 678 are unlikely to return to the region while Saddam


Hussein remains in power? Does he further agree that any peace settlement for the region must include provision not only for the Palestinians but for the Kurdish people who merely want the autonomy and democracy for which they have fought for many years?

Mr. Hurd: I agree with my hon. Friend's first point. It is hard to see how Iraq can re-enter the international community or, indeed, reconstruct the country effectively while Saddam Hussein is in power. We should all like to see, as part of the general settlement, greater autonomy for Kurds and respect for their aspirations and rights.

Mrs. Fyfe: Does the Foreign Secretary agree that since the plight of the Kurds has been known for so many years while Saddam Hussein's power has increased, it is vital that the Government address the issue now?

Mr. Hurd: I have already answered that point.

Sir Dennis Walters: Bearing in mind that the Geneva convention is systematically broken by the Israelis on the west bank and Gaza and that, although there are encouraging signs of movement towards peace, progress will inevitably be slow, can anything be done in the meantime to protect the Palestinians from further abuse?

Mr. Hurd: The Security Council has debated that matter within the last few months following the shootings at Temple Mount. It is very much in the interests of all concerned that while we are working, as we are now working again, towards a just and lasting solution to the Palestinian problem, the conditions in which the Palestinians live on the west bank and in Gaza should be improved. I put that point strongly to the Israeli Foreign Minister when he visited me not long ago.

Mr. Kaufman: When the country is mourning our service men who were killed in the Gulf war—a war which would never have taken place if outside powers had not supplied Iraq with armaments—is not it indecent that outside powers are now poising themselves to pour arms back into the middle east once again, thus creating the potential for further wars in the region? Will the right hon. Gentleman meet the secretary-general and propose to him that the United Nations take an initiative to impose the most stringent controls on all arms imports into the middle east?

Mr. Hurd: The right hon. Gentleman has obviously studied this matter. As he knows, agreements and control regimes exist for the weapons of mass destruction, such as nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. We and the United Nations must ensure that those regimes are strengthened and that the loopholes and weaknesses are blocked. The issue of conventional arms is more difficult. We have our own criteria in this country, which are considerably more strict than those that others apply to the export of arms. There is a need for suppliers to discuss what criteria are reasonable to prevent a repetition of what has happened, when someone such as Saddam Hussein, with his record and clear intentions, built up an army of tanks that was nearly twice as large as those of Britain and France combined.

Kuwait

Mr. Batiste: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when Her Majesty's Government expects to post its ambassador back to Kuwait.

Mr. Hurd: Her Majesty's ambassador returned to Kuwait on 28 February.

Mr. Batiste: Will my right hon. Friend express to the ambassador and his staff the considerable admiration that is felt in this country for the professionalism and courage that they displayed during the occupation of Kuwait? Turning to the future, my right hon. Friend will be aware that Yorkshire people and Yorkshire industry played a considerable part in the liberation of that country and would like to participate in its reconstruction. Is he satisfied that the embassy is now staffed up to the levels necessary to assist British industry during what might be an exceptionally busy period?

Mr. Hurd: I am sure that business men in Yorkshire and elsewhere are turning their minds ingeniously and energetically to playing a part in reconstructing Kuwait. Yes, the embassy is now staffing up. I suggest that business men from Yorkshire who are thinking of visiting Kuwait should get in touch with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office/Department of Trade and Industry task force under my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, because it may be a little time before visitors who do not have firm contracts can obtain visas to go there.

Mr. Leighton: Will the Foreign Secretary discuss with the British ambassador last night's worrying report on "Newsnight" by Mr. Charles Wheeler, which showed that foreign workers who were resident in Kuwait but had been abducted by the Iraqis and who are now attempting to make their way back in the most difficult and appalling circumstances are not being allowed back, but are being kept in the open desert for weeks on end, and that the Kuwaitis are denying food to foreign nationals who are resident in Kuwait? Is that what British service men died for? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is appalling? Will he take up this matter immediately with the British ambassador to get things changed?

Mr. Hurd: The ambassador has instructions, which he is carrying out daily, to urge upon the Kuwaiti authorities that they should deal with foreigners—I am thinking especially of Palestinians—equitably. There are bound to be problems in restoring ordinary conditions. Of course, there is a vacuum and it is not reasonable to expect normal conditions to return quickly. The hon. Gentleman is fair minded and he will accept that. However, from the beginning—indeed, before the liberation of Kuwait—we have been in contact with the Kuwaiti authorities and have urged them to bring the country back to normal conditions, especially in relation to justice and law and order, as soon as they can.

Middle East

Mr. Home Robertson: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on relations with countries in the middle east.

Mr. Butler: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the current situation in the middle east.

Mr. Hurd: The coalition forces suspended hostilities against Iraq on 28 February. Security Council resolution 686 sets out the conditions which Iraq must fulfil for a definitive end to hostilities. We and our coalition partners will continue our efforts to achieve this and to restore peace and security to the area.

Mr. Home Robertson: That answer is welcome. Notwithstanding the incomprehensible public stance of the Palestine Liberation Organisation on the invasion of Kuwait, does the Secretary of State acknowledge that private pressure from the PLO led to, among other things, the release of British and other foreign hostages by Saddam Hussein back in December? Will he further acknowledge that there can be no security in the middle east until a just settlement is achieved for the Palestinian people? Will he join me in welcoming the acknowledgment by Secretary of State Baker of the continuing role of the PLO? Can we expect the British Government to start holding conversations with members of the PLO in the near future?

Mr. Hurd: It is certainly true that there cannot be a settlement of the Arab-Israel problems without a just settlement for the Palestinians. Unfortunately, it is also true that the present leadership of the PLO substantially weakened the authority with which it can speak on behalf of the Palestinians by supporting Saddam Hussein's aggression. That is a fact with which the Palestinians have to wrestle. I welcome the meeting that Secretary Baker had with Palestinians yesterday. As the hon. Gentleman knows, we have our own contacts with Palestinians, both in the occupied territories and in Tunis.

Mr. Butler: I am sure that the whole House welcomes the sending of a United Nations team to investigate possible Iraqi atrocities in Kuwait. Will the remit of that team be extended to cover any possible subsequent atrocities?

Mr. Hurd: Like my hon. Friend, I welcome this sending of the secretary-general's team. I believe that it is investigating atrocities in Kuwait. I urged the Kuwaiti authorities some time ago that one of their actions when they returned to Kuwait should be to start drawing up an authentic catalogue of stories of such atrocities so that it can be made available to the United Nations.

Mr. Alton: On the third anniversary of the atrocities against the Kurds and the deaths of some 5,000 Kurds in one town alone, does the Foreign Secretary agree that perhaps the most fitting commemoration would be for the British Government and other allied Governments to take a more active role in seeking self-determination for the Kurdish people? What information does he have on the present Kurdish resistance in Iraq and the success that it is having?

Mr. Hurd: It is not realistic to suppose—nor does the hon. Gentleman ask for—an independent Kurdish state when one considers that Kurds live in four countries. What we are talking about and what my hon. Friends were talking about earlier, is a degree of autonomy and respect for Kurdish rights and practices. I agree with that.
We have reason to believe that there is a substantial uprising in the northern parts of Iraq in which the Kurds are playing their part in an attempt to overthrow the regime in Baghdad.

Mr. Nelson: Now that many countries in the Gulf region—especially Kuwait—are back to the political drawing board, does my right hon. Friend accept that Britain has a historic and influential role to play in any political reconstruction? Does he share the view of some that there is little prospect of more enlightened and democratic government simply through transferring power from ruling families to other pairs of hands? Does he agree that what is probably needed is the democratic check of some representative councils along the lines of those set up in other Arab states, such as Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and the Sultanate of Oman, which have worked well to defend the interests of their people against excessive autocracy of government.

Mr. Hurd: I believe that Arab states, like countries in South America and black Africa, will find their own way towards greater involvement of their people in the processes of government. I hope very much that that will happen in Kuwait.

Mr. Ernie Ross: In an earlier response, the Secretary of State suggested that the PLO had somehow blotted its copybook. Yet he knows as well as I do that in recent attempts by western nations to find out who represents the Palestinian people, such as the visit of the troika of Ministers last week and that of James Baker yesterday when he met Faisal Husseini, Hanan Ashrawi, the mayor of Bethlehem and the ex-mayor of Hebron among others, who are the leaders of the Palestinians on the west bank and Gaza, all delegations made it clear that the one group which speaks for them is the PLO. I hope that the Secretary of State will not go back to the old game of simply putting off discussions on the pretext that he does not know who represents the Palestinians. They have made clear who their representatives are, and unless and until we talk to them, there can be no moves towards peace.

Mr. Hurd: I accept that, because the Palestinians must be an essential part of the answer to the Arab-Israel problem, there must be representative Palestinians, as opposed to Palestinians selected by the occupying forces. But it is important that the PLO leadership should, when organising themselves and deciding what to say and do in the near future, reflect on the harm that has been done by elements of that leadership during the recent Gulf crisis.

Germany

Mr. Knapman: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Anglo-German relations.

Mr. Patrick Thompson: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement on the Anglo-German summit on 11 March.

Mr. Hurd: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and others of us had excellent talks with Chancellor Kohl and his colleagues in Bonn at the summit on 11 March. The


subjects discussed included the Gulf, the Soviet Union and eastern Europe, and issues affecting the European Community and the NATO alliance.

Mr. Knapman: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his comprehensive and reassuring reply, but is it not the case that our new-found friends the Christian Democrats, are keen on federalism and a single currency? In those circumstances, what is to happen to our vision of a group of sovereign nation states co-operating together to achieve their mutual targets?

Mr. Hurd: If my hon. Friend is thinking of ties between parties, that is not strictly a matter for me. However, there is a lot to be said for coming together with like-minded parties against any socialist dominance in the European Parliament or anywhere else.
On the governmental point to which my hon. Friend referred—our approach to the two intergovernmental conferences is based on the guidelines established last year and set out most recently by the Prime Minister in his foreword to the Foreign Office White Paper on the Community.

Mr. Patrick Thompson: While welcoming the development of a good working relationship with Germany, as described by my right hon. Friend, will he assure the House that the economic strength of a new united Germany should be regarded as an opportunity rather than a difficulty or threat?

Mr. Hurd: I think that my hon. Friend is right. I believe that there is everything to be said, partly due to the reason that he gave and partly due to the natural political weight of a unified Germany in the Community, for ensuring that we take every opportunity to make ourselves better acquainted with their ideas and make them better acquainted with ours.

Sir Russell Johnston: Did the Prime Minister take the opportunity to tell Chancellor Kohl to ignore any political Scud missiles emerging from Cirencester or Finchley and assure him that there would be no more peculiar conferences to examine the German psyche?

Mr. Hurd: The hon. Gentleman bases his question on some lurid press accounts of that occasion, which I attended and which was noted for its sobriety and good sense.

Sir Peter Blaker: Is my right hon. Friend aware that it is not only people of the Prime Minister's generation, but those who are so old that they actually took part in the second world war, who want the closest possible relations between the United Kingdom and Germany? Is it not natural and sensible that the leadership of the European Community should be in the hands of the United Kingdom as well as those of Germany and France?

Mr. Hurd: As I have said, I am sure that it is right that we should be closer than we have sometimes been to the ideas of others, and that they should be closer to ours. That is happening in the Community, not just among the three member states that my right hon. Friend mentioned, but among other smaller states such as the Netherlands, Portugal and Belgium, with which we are increasing the intensity of our contact.

Mr. Radice: In welcoming the improved climate in Anglo-German relations, may I ask the Foreign Secretary

whether he agrees that the fears about Germany expressed in the United States by the former Prime Minister are groundless? In any case, is not the best safeguard against an over-mighty Germany a strong European Community?

Mr. Hurd: We are fortunate that the German leadership is determined to use the strength of a united Germany within the Community and within the Atlantic alliance. Long may that continue. If we can help to make sure that that German policy is permanently routed for the future, we will have done a good turn to the alliance and to the Community.

Mr. Kaufman: Following the talks with the German partners, will the Foreign Secretary give a clear and specific reply to the question which his right hon. and dithering Friend the Prime Minister dodged at Prime Minister's Question Time yesterday: do the Government now support a European central bank and a single European currency, or was the visit to Germany just another example of the style of this Prime Minister—empty words and no action?

Mr. Hurd: The right hon. Gentleman is adapting his familiar platitudinous question about the community charge. It is as much nonsense in one context as it is in the other. As I said in my answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Knapman), the guidelines on which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor is approaching the intergovernmental conference on economic and monetary union were set out last year and were spelt out most recently by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in his foreword to the White Paper.

European Community

Mr. David Evans: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he is taking to ensure the European Community speaks with one voice against tyranny, oppression and international terrorism.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones): The European Community is the largest free market in the world. As my hon. Friend knows, market economies are underpinned by democracy, and democracy is the enemy of tyranny, oppression and international terrorism. Through the intergovernmental conference on political union, we hope to strengthen European political co-operation and thus enable the Community's voice in these matters to be strengthened even further.

Mr. Evans: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Who does he think behaved worse over the Gulf—the Belgians who would not supply weapons to an ally in war or the Opposition who did not support the Government in the Lobbies and who, in other words, did not support our troops?

Mr. Garel-Jones: I am glad to say that I do not have any responsibility for the conduct of Opposition Members. My hon. Friend asked about one of our European partners. I remind him that the Community has no responsibility for defence, nor in our view should it have. The Belgian Government have offered a contribution of £25 million towards our costs in the Gulf war, and we are grateful for that.

Dr. Godman: By way of the IGC, will the Minister make every attempt to ensure that the member states of the European Community speak with one voice in denouncing tyranny and oppression in Turkey? Will he also ensure that the Community will never seriously consider Turkish membership of the Community until tyranny and oppression are obliterated, and until the annexation of part of Cyprus is ended?

Mr. Garel-Jones: The Community partners have agreed that no applications for membership of the Community will be considered until 1993, and that applies also to Turkey. We frequently make representations to our Turkish friends about human rights in Turkey. The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that, within their sovereign territory the Government in Turkey have been subjected to considerable terrorist activity.

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: Although I accept that my hon. Friend is obviously right to say that the Community has no responsibility for defence, none the less it seeks to speak with a common voice on foreign affairs. One of the outcomes of the Gulf war must surely be the realisation that it is unrealistic for us to expect the Community to do that in the foreseeable future. Will my hon. Friend confirm that it is Government policy to maintain the right to an independent stance, whatever happens to the Community in terms of political co-operation?

Mr. Garel-Jones: I can give my hon. Friend that assurance but he will be aware that, when the Community speaks with one voice, it does so under European political co-operation, which is outside the remit of the Commission and the treaty of Rome. We believe that it is right to continue to work with our partners to find ways in which we can arrive at common positions, because when we can do so, as we did over the Gulf, it works remarkably successfully. We want to build on that.

Drugs

Mr. Vaz: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on international co-operation concerning the war against drugs.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Mark Lennox-Boyd): We attach great importance to fighting the drugs trade and are continuing to promote effective international action, both in multilateral forums and through our bilateral contacts.

Mr. Vaz: What progress has been made in implementing any of the 33 paragraphs that form the declaration of intent issued at the end of last April by the world ministerial conference in London? Does not the fight against drugs remain one of the highest priorities for this country? Can the Minister tell us of one initiative taken by his Department in the past year that will enable us to show the rest of the world that we took the conference seriously?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Yes, I can give many examples. I shall give a few now.

Mr. Graham: Give one.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I shall give one straight away. This coming February, the demand reduction task force is

visiting Belize and the British Virgin Islands. [Interruption.] I am sorry: immediately. It has made its visit. Furthermore, we have continued with substantial aid to the Caribbean area. We have sent £8·5 million to Colombia and £6 million to the Caribbean over the past two years.

Mr. Rathbone: When will Britain be in a position to ratify the United Nations convention? Will my hon. Friend commit the British Government to continued support of the Pompidou group efforts under the new chairmanship of the Norwegians?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Yes, we shall be ratifying the United Nations convention soon. We give great support to the Pompidou group. As my hon. Friend knows, there will be a meeting in Oslo later this year, in which contacts with east European countries in the fight against drugs will be developed further.

EC Intergovernmental Conferences

Mr. Robertson: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on progress at the two European Community intergovernmental conferences.

Mr. Garel-Jones: The United Kingdom continues to play a full and constructive role in both intergovernmental conferences. The conference on EMU met most recently on 25 February, attended by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State attended a meeting of the political union conference on 4 March. Ministers' personal representatives meet about weekly to examine the issues in more detail.

Mr. Robertson: When the Prime Minister on Monday in Bonn said,
I want us to be where we belong. At the very heart of Europe. Working with our partners in building the future",
could he have been referring to the social charter? All other 11 countries in the Community subscribe to the social charter, as does the Christian Democratic Union of Germany. Why cannot we, too, not take on board such progressive European legislation? Is it because the Prime Minister's speeches and words are simply a symptom of, or a smokescreen for, the chronic indecision that lies at the heart of Government in this matter?

Mr. Garel-Jones: The United Kingdom fully accepts the social dimension of the Community, but there is no question of changing our course on the social charter. We opposed it in 1989. The Rome European Council rightly reaffirmed that the Community solution to social issues should take account of subsidiarity, creating and developing employment and the need to respect the different customs and traditions of member states. That is the United Kingdom message.

Mr. Cash: Can my hon. Friend give us an assurance that there is no question at the intergovernmental conference of our conceding a single currency, a central bank or political union along the lines proposed by Chancellor Kohl?

Mr. Garel-Jones: The Government have frequently made it clear that there is no question of our accepting the imposition of a single currency.

Mr. John D. Taylor: What is the Minister's reaction to the suggestion at one intergovernmental conference that, on a rotational basis, Germany and the other European countries should replace the United Kingdom on the Security Council of the United Nations?

Mr. Garel-Jones: There has been no such suggestion. My reaction is that it is not a good idea.

BBC World Service

Sir Fergus Montgomery: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he will make a statement on the role of the BBC World Service during recent periods of international crisis.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The BBC World Service has been of enormous value both during the events in eastern Europe last winter and in the Gulf crisis. Its accurate and timely reporting has been widely welcomed, and its audience has increased.

Sir Fergus Montgomery: Does my hon. Friend agree that the BBC World Service should be congratulated on the emphasis that it gave to getting the allied message across to Arab countries?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Yes. The primary duty of the BBC World Service is to enhance Britain's standing abroad. I am happy to agree with my hon. Friend that that is precisely what it managed to do during the recent crisis. The Arabic service was increased from nine hours to 14 hours a day, and there was and will continue to be 24-hour coverage in the middle east as long as British forces remain in the area.

Mr. Foulkes: Why are the Government so half-hearted about the BBC world television service which started on Monday? Will the Minister now pledge the Government's full support, both practical and financial, which is necessary to ensure the success of the service so that people around the world may have a real alternative to Cable News Network?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: We are delighted to wish the BBC project success, but the hon. Gentleman should be aware that ITN started a commercial world television service without the need for public funds. We believe that that is the way forward.

Mr. Rhodes James: Is my hon. Friend aware that the BBC world radio service is superb and is deeply honoured and respected throughout the world? Will the Government realise that my hon. Friend is not right? What he says is the way forward is not. The way forward is for the BBC World Service to receive strong governmental support.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: The BBC will receive strong Government support, but when it comes to financial support, we have to recognise that several companies with substantial British ownership, including ITN and BSkyB, operate in the market.

Thailand

Mr. Illsley: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he has made any representations to the military Government in Thailand; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: We deeply regret the replacement by military rule of Thailand's democratically elected Government. We will make clear to the National Peace Keeping Council and to the interim civilian Government our desire to see the early lifting of martial law, the release of all detainees, and the speedy restoration of democracy.

Mr. Illsley: I am grateful for that reply. Will the Government ensure that they make early representations to secure an early return to democracy within Thailand? Will the Minister urge the intervening Government to distance themselves from the Pol Pot regime and Khmer Rouge?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: We greatly regret the displacement of democracy and regret that the Military Council has not confirmed its initial commitment to restore democracy within six months.

Mr. Bowis: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the great causes for regret at the fact that the regime has taken over is that it appears to be very close to Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge people who are living in comfort inside Thailand? Will he persuade the Government and people of Thailand to hand this man to justice, because Pol Pot and his regime committed crimes under the genocide convention every bit as bad as the war crimes of Saddam Hussein?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: We have repeatedly called for an end to all arms supplies and all support to all the Cambodian parties of that kind, but we are assured by the Foreign Ministry in Thailand that it continues to support the comprehensive settlement proposals for Cambodia.

Middle East

Sir David Steel: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had about the establishment of a comprehensive middle east peace conference.

Mr. Hurd: Since the ceasefire in the Gulf, I have talked to the Americans, the French, the Twelve and most recently with the Israeli Foreign Minister on 5 March. We are also in touch with other countries in the region. We remain committed to an international conference on the Arab-Israel problem at the right time, but there is a great deal of preparation to be done first.

Sir David Steel: While I entirely accept both that answer and what the Foreign Secretary said earlier this afternoon about the authority of the PLO leadership having been weakened, will the right hon. Gentleman accept as a basic principle of such a conference that no other participants can be allowed to dictate who should represent the Palestinians, and that they themselves are entitled to choose their representatives?

Mr. Hurd: Indeed that is right, and the representatives must be representative, or there is no point in having a conference; but equally, everyone else has to attend Israel has to attend—if it is to be worth while. That is what I mean when I say that a good deal of preparation must be done first. However, that preparation is in hand. There is now a visible effort by the United States, by the troika of the Twelve and to some extent also by the parties to make some real progress.

Mr. Cormack: Does my right hon. Friend agree that there is no question of a comprehensive conference of this sort while Saddam Hussein remains in power in Iraq? It is essential that Iraq be represented at any conference, and that evil man cannot represent his country at this sort of conference.

Mr. Hurd: I think that is right. Iraq is not of course a main party to this dispute, although Saddam Hussein thrust himself forward as if it were. That claim has now been rejected by everybody, and by events, so I do not think that the search for justice for the Palestinians and security for Israel need wait on events in Iraq.

Mr. Galloway: The Secretary of State said earlier that the Palestinian representatives must be representative. He is not seriously suggesting that the position of the PLO has been weakened within the ranks of the Palestinian population, is he? We may disagree, as his Government certainly do, with what the PLO said—I thought that he caricatured the PLO position on Saddam Hussein's aggression—but he cannot seriously be saying that the PLO no longer represents both the two thirds of Palestinians who live outside Palestine and 99·99 per cent. of the Palestinians who live inside. Let us not turn the page back to all those years when the Secretary of State was forced to pretend that the PLO does not comprise the people we should talk to. It is indispensable to the peace process, and the Foreign Secretary should say that to the Americans, who are listening to what the British Foreign Office says.

Mr. Hurd: I did not caricature the PLO attitude. There was no need. Many of us have seen Mr. Arafat creating that attitude on television. There is no doubt about that. The hon. Member is right to say that the PLO continues to enjoy very wide support in the occupied territories and among Palestinians dispersed across the world, as was illustrated again at Mr. Baker's meeting; the difficulty is that what they have weakened is their acceptability to those with whom they must talk, who include some of the most important of their former Arab friends.

Israel

Mr. Hayes: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had recently with the Israeli ambassador regarding the Palestinian question.

Mr. Hurd: I discussed the Palestine question with the Israeli Foreign Minister on 5 March. The ambassador was present. I stressed that stability in the region could not be achieved without progress on this question.

Mr. Hayes: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that it is very important that, before there can be any sensible or speedy resolution of the Palestinian question, there should be a peace treaty between Israel and all Arab countries? Does my right hon. Friend also agree that it is important that any negotiations involve a true, democratically elected representative or representatives of the Palestinian people? The question that we must all ask ourselves is whether, in the end, the PLO can really deliver.

Mr. Hurd: It is not realistic to imagine negotiations between Israel and its Arab neighbours being successful unless, at least in parallel, there is discussion between

Israel and representative Palestinians. It would be a mistake to create the impression that we believe that it is possible. The two things have to go together. The encouraging thing about my talk with Mr. Levy was that he accepted that, although obviously the basis on which the Israelis are prepared to talk to the Palestinians is not the same one as we think would be most fruitful.

Mr. Corbyn: Will the Secretary of State recognise that one of the great injustices of modern times is the treatment of Palestinian people by Israel? Will he impress upon the Israeli Government the fact that, for there to be peace and stability within the middle east, the Palestinian people must have the right of self-determination, and that that opportunity will exist if and when they are prepared to talk to the PLO and come to some settlement with it?

Mr. Hurd: Palestinians have a right to self-determination, as Her Majesty's Government have long accepted. That will be achieved only through the kind of discussions that the hon. Gentleman rightly mentioned. We and friends of the Palestinians in the House, of whom there are many, should do our utmost, particularly at this critical stage when everything may be a bit more flexible and a bit more promising than in the past, before the mould sets again, to impress upon the Palestinians and on Arab states which have not yet attained peace with Israel, the fact that Israel's anxiety about her own security is real, not fictitious, and it has to be met if there is to be a lasting settlement. The two things must go together.

The Gulf

Mr. Jacques Arnold: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the prospects for future peace and security in the Gulf.

Mr. Hurd: We warmly welcome the initiative taken by the Foreign Ministers of the Gulf Co-operation Council states together with Egypt and Syria, to discuss future security arrangements for the region. We will be ready to play our part if asked to do so.

Mr. Arnold: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the peace and security of the Arab Gulf states would not be enhanced by putting in danger the peace and security of the long-suffering people of Israel? Will he join me in rejecting the unashamed apologists on the Opposition Benches for that repulsive man Yasser Arafat?

Mr. Hurd: In the past 10 minutes, I have chosen my own words, which were slightly different from those of my hon. Friend, to make essentially exactly those points.

Mr. Graham: Bearing in mind the fact that we stepped back and fed Saddam Hussein arms which eventually led to the elimination of 5,000 Kurds, does the Secretary of State realise that there will never be peace in the middle east without a solution to the Kurdish problem? When will the Government back the Kurds' right to be an independent nation?

Mr. Hurd: I have already answered several supplementary questions about the Kurds, and I shall not repeat what I have said. Realistically an independent Kurdish state is highly unlikely. What is realistic is that Kurds


within the borders of the states in which they live should have a decent existence and be able to exercise political rights.

Mr. Churchill: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the persistent and disturbing reports that Saddam Hussein's forces might once again be using chemical weapons against his own population, and would not that be a matter of the utmost gravity? If such reports were to be true, would my. right hon. Friend immediately consult the other members of the Security Council to see what positive measures could be taken to protect the Kurdish and other Iraqi civilian populations?

Mr. Hurd: My hon. Friend is right to say that there have been such reports. We have not been able to confirm that they are true, but he rightly states what we would have to do if such reports were confirmed.

Middle East

Mr. Harry Barnes: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on progress towards negotiations between Iraq and Kuwait to resolve their differences in conformity with United Nations resolution 678.

Mr. Hurd: The first step towards any negotiations must be to secure a definitive end to hostilities—a proper ceasefire—in the Gulf. Security Council resolution 686 sets out the conditions that Iraq must fulfil for this to come about.

Mr. Barnes: Should not action be taken to establish links with Arab nations following the Gulf war? I refer, for instance, to moves towards the establishment of a Palestinian state and to the adoption of United Nations resolution 666, which concerns humanitarian assistance for Iraq and for Kuwait, as well as support for the democratic forces that associate themselves with change inside those two countries.

Mr. Hurd: Those are three rather different questions. I think that I have answered the question about Palestinian self-determination. As regards humanitarian help, I should say that the sanctions committee of the United Nations is examining quite a large number of requests for permission, within the sanctions framework, to allow food to go through to Iraq on a humanitarian basis—that is of course happening—in addition to medicines, which are not covered by the embargo. I have answered questions about how I see the movement towards greater popular involvement in government in the Gulf proceeding.

Mr. Ian Taylor: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that talks are progressing between the Gulf Co-operation Council countries and Kuwait, as well as Egypt and Syria, which performed on the allied side during the Gulf war, to ensure that stability may return to Kuwait? Kuwait still faces danger from the uncertainty in Iraq. The priorities must be to make sure that Kuwait has stable government and that the people are well looked after.

Mr. Hurd: Of course that is right. I very much welcome the fact that, quite soon after the liberation of Kuwait, the six GCC states, including Kuwait, sat down in Cairo with Egypt and Syria. Contact was resumed in Damascus last week and a declaration was issued. There is a long way to go, but we have the core of Arab co-operation on security

and other matters. Those countries will have to work out a peaceful relationship with Iran and will have to deal with other important matters that have not yet been tackled. However, a good start has been made.

Shrines (Damage)

Mr. Dalyell: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on his latest information about the damage or alleged damage to the shrines at Kerbala, Najaf and Sammarra.

Mr. Hurd: We are not aware of any damage caused to shrines at Kerbala, Najaf or Sammarra. I reiterate that allied pilots and instructions to ensure minimum civilian casualties and to avoid damage, wherever possible, to cultural and religious sites.

Mr. Dalyell: At a length impossible in the context of answers to Foreign Office questions, may I ask the Foreign Secretary to brief the Environment Minister who will reply in the debate on Friday 15 March on this country's attitude to the Shia who may be fighting Saddam in Najaf; on the use of chemical weapons, possibly in Kerbala, in the inter-Iraqi struggles; and on any damage and contamina-tion that may have occurred at the Iraqi chemical factory at Sammara. Also, why, in the last 48 hours, was it necessary to bomb the Basra road? May we be given a full explanation of these matters on Friday?

Mr. Hurd: It sounds as though it would be prudent if were to give my hon. Friend some briefing on these matters for the purposes of the debate on Friday. However, some of them go well beyond the range of that debate. I have already answered a question about the use of chemical weapons by the Iraqis and I have dealt with the hon. Gentleman's main point about damage to the shrines that he has mentioned. There does not seem to have been any such damage. Given the habit of President Saddam Hussein of locating very important industrial and other plants close to shrines, it is a tribute to the allies that there has not been such damage.

Sir Bernard Braine: As the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) referred to chemical weapons capacity, may I ask my right hon. Friend to reconsider the answer that he gave my hon. Friend the Member for Davyhulme (Mr. Churchill) a moment ago? Whether or not there is evidence that Saddam Hussein has used chemical weapons against his own people in the present situation, it is a fact that, two years ago, he murdered 5,000 Kurds with chemical weapons manufactured in Iraq. Surely this is a matter that should be raised at the United Nations now.

Mr. Hurd: That matter was raised—and by whom? It was raised by the British. We were the first people to do so at that time. It is partly in the memory of that that we are now proposing that among the measures to be taken by the United Nations should be the verified destruction of all such weapons and the missiles that could deliver them.

Cambodia

Mr. Wareing: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he has any plans to visit Cambodia to discuss the political situation in that country.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: My right hon. Friend has no plans to do so.

Mr. Wareing: Is not it disgraceful that no Minister has visited Phnom Penh to discuss with the Government—who are at least in control in the capital of Cambodia—the position in that country? Does not that give a wrong message to the Khmer Rouge that the Government are still

soft on Pol Pot? Should not we make a clear declaration to the world that we are not on the side of terrorism, whether in Iraq or Cambodia?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: This Government are not soft on Pol Pot, whom we condemn unhesitatingly. The way forward is through a comprehensive political settlement that has been endorsed by all the parties and by the United Nations. That is the way forward, and that is what should be impressed on the Phnom Penh regime.

GP Fund Holding Scheme

The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. William Waldegrave): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement on the implementation of the general practice fund holding scheme from 1 April 1991. The House will recall that the purpose of the scheme is to give those practices which wish to do so the opportunity to manage their resources for staff, prescribing and a specified range of hospital services. Practices are free to decide how they wish to spend money within those categories in the best interests of their patients. The general practice fund holding scheme is designed specifically to draw on the experience and expertise of general practitioners. It will encourage innovation in the health service and give the general practitioners concerned more freedom to determine the best use of resources within an overall framework of public accountability.
The general practitioner fund holding scheme is an entirely voluntary one. Eligibility is restricted to larger practices with more than 9,000 patients, or to smaller practices that group together to achieve this total. Since the details were first announced in December 1989, there has been a lively interest in the scheme, with almost 1,000 practices initially contacting their regional health authorities for further information. Regional health authorities have held detailed discussions with individual practices to ensure that they have the management capability to enter the scheme.
I am pleased to announce to the House that the names of 1,720 general practitioners in England in 306 practices are going forward to regional health authorities for approval as participants in the first wave of fund holding practices from 1 April 1991. The practices concerned embrace a total list size of 3·6 million patients, or about 7·5 per cent. of the total population. Regional health authorities are announcing the names as they give approval to the applications.
I should like to pay tribute to the practices which have chosen to participate in the first wave of the fund holding scheme. Like any pioneers, they have had to cope with difficulties which their experience will resolve for their successors. Everyone who has met the fund holders, as I and my ministerial colleagues have done, has been greatly impressed by their obvious determination to use the new scheme to raise the quality of services for patients and to explore more innovative methods of providing health care.
The House will equally wish to know that there is substantial further interest among practices in joining the scheme for future years. Practices will need to apply to regional health authorites by 1 April 1991 to participate in the second wave of fund holding practices to start on 1 April 1992. I am pleased to report that about 350 practices have already expressed an interest to their regional health authorities in joining the second wave of fund holding practices.
There has also been a significant interest among general practitioners in extending the fund holding scheme. In particular, I know that many practices with fewer than 9,000 patients would like to be able to join the scheme in their own right. In addition, many first wave practices have asked if the scheme could be extended to cover a greater range of services. I am very sympathetic to both those requests. Equally, I need to be sure that the expansion of

the fund holding scheme does not outstrip the capability of the NHS as a whole to meet its needs, particularly as regards information systems and information technology.
I am therefore proposing to run from 1 April 1991 a series of demonstration projects to explore the possibilities for the development of GP fund holding. Approximately £250,000 will be made available for this purpose in 1991–92 by my Department, and additional support will be provided by regional health authorities.
We will be funding a number of practices with a list size of fewer than 9,000 patients to undertake a two-year project to establish how fund holding would work in smaller practices. Six projects in South-West Thames, Mersey, South-East Thames, North-West Thames, Oxford and Wessex regional health authorities have been selected. In addition, Bradford family health services authority will undertake a project looking at the role of the GP fund holder with regard to community-based health and social care services, and a similar project will be undertaken in two fund holding practices in Trent regional health authority. The latter project will also explore the possibility of including in the scheme a wider range of hospital services.
I emphasise to the House that general practice fund holding is not the only vehicle for allowing general practitioners to exercise more influence on service provision to reflect the particular needs of their patients. In particular, the new role of district health authorities as purchasing authorities requires them to work closely with local GPs. I look forward to this closer relationship developing further in a positive and constructive fashion. In taking GP fund holding forward, we will wish to learn from the development projects I have announced today, from the experience of the first wave fund holders, and from discussions with the representatives of the medical profession.
There is no doubt that empowering general practitioners directly as purchasers of care will be one significant means of improving the quality of services to patients and ensuring that those in daily contact with patients play a full role in discussions on service provision. This confidence has been fully borne out by our experience of the preparation for the scheme made in 1990–91 by the first wave of practices. I know that we have a secure foundation on which to start fund holding and clear enthusiasm for the future progress of the scheme.

Mr. Robin Cook: The Secretary of State was good enough to refer to these practices as "pioneers". First, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman about those GPs who fell by the wayside on the trail west? Will he confirm that last March 850 practices expressed an interest? Will he comment on the statement by the GP who has since withdrawn from the scheme, saying:
I'll be surprised if budget holding does not collapse in the first year";
and that of the GP who withdrew, saying:
The NHS is heading for a disaster"?
Is not the Secretary of State left with only a third of the starters because the rest came to share those fears? Is he aware that agreements have not yet been reached with even the 300 who remain? May I advise him that this afternoon I spoke to representatives of a practice on his list who informed me that they still do not know how much they will get or how they will spend it? How does the right hon.
Gentleman expect budget holders to be more businesslike if he cannot tell them their budgets a fortnight before they start?
May I offer my congratulations to the Secretary of State on his caution in running pilot projects before he offers budget holding to practices of fewer than 9,000 patients? In view of that sensible precaution, why did his predecessor always refuse to run any pilot projects for the practices which take this leap in the dark today?
The Secretary of State promised that this measure would raise quality. Has he received the simulation of the scheme carried out in East Anglia? Does he know that it shows that pressure from budget holders tended to reduce the standard of treatment to what they could afford on a fixed budget? How can he hope to raise the quality of GP care by putting a cash limit on what GPs can spend?
If the Secretary of State really wants value for money, will he come clean on the cost of this scheme? Will he confirm that each of these practices will cost £32,000 more in administration? [Laughter.] I am glad that the hon. Member for Harlow (Mr. Hayes) finds that amusing. This statement will cost another £10 million for more managers, when what the NHS needs is more nurses and more doctors.
I invite the Secretary of State to comment on where his statement today leaves the patients of the other 10,000 general practices. May we have an assurance that there will be no double standards on the waiting list? What guarantee can the right hon. Gentleman give that budget holders will not be able to buy a fast track for their patients to jump the queue? [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Harlow is at least 24 hours behind the times. There is no debate.
Does the Secretary of State agree that his statement today confirms that, although his party has changed its leader, it is still following the same health policies? Has he not yet grasped the fact that at the election his party will pay for its drive to change a public health service into a commercial business?

Mr. Waldegrave: The hon. Gentleman made a number of small but significant factual errors, which seemed to show that he does not have a great grasp of the subject. The number of practices was not 850 but 950. The reason that many of them dropped out was that they were below the 9,000 patient limit. If the hon. Gentleman will investigate the matter, he will find that there is also a difference between units and practices. One of the main reasons they dropped out was that they were below the 9,000 limit.
The hon. Gentleman has once again underestimated GPs. He did it last year, spectacularly, when he said that they would not hit the targets in the contract—and they have. He is yet again underestimating them. We are already seeing in those GP fund-holding practices the winning of better quality care for their patients, and that is what they are about. It is entirely characteristic of the Labour party that it immediately says that, if somebody is better off, that must mean that someone else is worse off, so it is against the whole thing. GP fund holders are exploring with their own skills and energy how to get better deals for their patients. We should welcome that.
The hon. Gentleman raised the prospect of pilot schemes. The whole of the GP fund holding scheme as a voluntary scheme is, if one likes, a pilot scheme. We are talking about further investigations before the third wave.
As I said, I hope that we will have about 750 practices in the first two waves. A sum of £33,000 is given to GP fund holders for the scheme's administration. That is entirely well spent to gain the kind of service improvements that we are seeing in GP fund holding schemes.
I must warn the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) that quite a lot of the schemes that I have visited—though perhaps a minority—are supporters of the hon. Gentleman's party, but greatly regret the bone-headedness of its response to the scheme. We should be looking at the possibilities for patient gains.

Dame Jill Knight: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that, although GPs' pay fell by some 14 per cent. under Labour, it has increased by about 36 per cent. under the Conservatives? Are not more doctors working today than ever before, and do they not have more staff in their practices? Does not the new contract mean that they have more money for night visits and for those aged over 75 on their lists? Will my right hon. Friend elaborate on the excellent service that this will mean for patients?

Mr. Waldegrave: My hon. Friend is entirely right. There are more GPs, more practice nurses, and smaller lust sizes in every region and every county. I am sure that, in their hearts, Labour Members welcome that as much as we do. It would be generous of them occasionally to acknowledge it.
The benefits that we are already seeing from GP fund holding include the development of the idea of consultants attending GPs' surgeries to hold clinics; improvements to a whole range of non-clinical quality—for example, limitations on waiting times, and GP direct access to services; and thoughtful and sensible improvements to services, which we shall now see imitated by the districts when they purchase their services, and by other GPs, whether or not they are fund holders.

Mr. Archy Kirkwood: I acknowledge the fact that the health professionals to whom I have spoken welcome the much more accommodating tone of this Secretary of State for Health in comparison to the tone of some of his predecessors. I particularly welcome the idea to pilot the proposals for budget holders below the size of 9,000.
Is the Secretary of State aware of the concern about the lack of certainty about the level of budgets to be fixed for the start of the new year and the uncertainty about the item costs that GP fund holders may be charged by hospitals? Will the right hon. Gentleman also elaborate on central costs? I assume that a statement will be made about equivalent matters north of the border in Scotland.

Mr. Waldegrave: I am happy to re-emphasise that I am taking forward a policy that was invented, and carried into legislation, by my predecessor. I am proud to be doing that, because it is a very good policy.
With regard to budgets, regions are at present announcing their fund holders. I foresee no difficulties with the budget agreements. I would not have come to the House today if we believed that there would be arty problems in that respect. Next year's budgets are based on this year's spending and referral practice and, in addition, allow some service development. There will be no problems about that.
However, the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) made a good point when he said that, as we know, some of the disaggregated information is not yet available from hospitals. That is why most of the improvements in services that GP fund holders are winning for their patients are related to quality of service and not so much to costs. However, that is also very useful.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I thank my right hon. Friend for his useful and informative statement and for his constructive and sensitive attitude to the health service. Does he accept that GPs have a major—perhaps the major—role to play in health care? Will he assure the House that, under this new scheme of budget holding general practices, GPs will not be inhibited when prescribing the best possible medication and drugs for their patients in accordance with their clinical judgment or when recommending a patient to the best possible consultant in the best possible hospital for the treatment that that patient needs?

Mr. Waldegrave: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's kind words. I give him the assurance that he seeks. If a GP fund holder were to find that a patient or a group of patients, in the event perhaps of a local epidemic, were to take him above his budget, he would have the right to go back to the region for additional funds.
With regard to the more general point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), one of the main strengths of our health service is that we have a national system of quality GPs which other countries very much envy. Some of the most interesting developments in health care in the years ahead will probably come from the much closer integration of primary and secondary health care in the way set out in the management executive paper which I know my hon. Friend has seen.

Mr. Bob Cryer: What will happen if the money runs out after GPs have penetrated the maze of additional administration? What will happen if the money runs out after GPs have difficulties having prescribed according to medical needs and requirements instead of according to financial constraints? If that money is medically required, will the GPs be guaranteed the money?

Mr. Waldegrave: I have already answered that question in replying to my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield. The region will maintain reserve funds to deal with such problems. As usual, the Labour party is imagining difficulties where none exist. The GPs, who know a great deal about this, are queueing up to join the scheme. If they believed that the dangers described by the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) existed, they would not be doing that.

Mr. Jerry Hayes: Is not my right hon. Friend greatly encouraged by the fact that so many GPs are applying to participate in the scheme and by the fact that so many more are interested in the second wave? Is not that good news for GPs but far better news for patients? Is it not entirely predictable that all those things are completely anathema to the Labour party, which wants to abolish the scheme? Will he warn Labour Members that the electorate will not forgive them if there is another

campaign cynically to manipulate the elderly, infirm and the vulnerable by telling them that they will not receive proper treatment?

Mr. Waldegrave: I strongly endorse what my hon. Friend has said. After the obvious and demonstrable falsification by the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) and his predictions about the contract—no doubt made in good faith but demonstrably false—any campaign would carry little weight in any case.

Mr. Frank Field: Is there not some irony in the fact that the Secretary of State commends the reforms on the basis of what health professionals say, given that they come under the heading "Putting patients first"? How many patients have supported the reforms?

Mr. Waldegrave: The hon. Gentleman will find that, as patients have demonstrated to them the gains that their GP fund holders have won for them, there will be strong patient support. On the whole, GPs, as the closest representatives of patients, are the health professionals on whom it is wise to rely when we are seeking to introduce patient demands into the system. That is one of the strengths of our GP system.

Mr. Roger Sims: Do not the figures that my right hon. Friend has given demonstrate not only a misjudgment on the part of the Labour party but some doubt about the validity of the campaign that was run by the British Medical Association about a year ago? Will my right hon. Friend confirm that one result of GP fund holding is that GPs and their patients will have more choice in the consultants and hospitals to which they can be sent and that that is to the benefit not only of the patient but of the health service generally, because there will be shorter hospital waiting lists?

Mr. Waldegrave: That is exactly the gain for patients that the scheme will produce. I do not intend to rake over the coals of past anxieties on the part of the BMA. Many leading GPs, in all parties is so far as they have political affiliations, are now part of the scheme. That shows that it is a well-based scheme which many of the best doctors regard as worth while supporting.

Rev. Martin Smyth: The Secretary of State said that about 1,000 were in the first wave of applicants. I gathered that many of them dropped out because they had fewer than 9,000 patients. May we have the proportion? How many dropped out, and how many were not accepted by the Department? In the next wave of 350 applicants, how many were from the first wave? In the background papers, it is suggested that GPs may be limited in sending people to various hospitals if there are compelling reasons. What must those compelling reasons be, and who should decide what they are?

Mr. Waldegrave: Of the original contacts from those who wished information about the scheme when it was announced, many were ineligible. I am not sure whether we have the detailed breakdown of the reasons why some have since either not been eligible or have withdrawn. I shall examine that matter and write to the hon. Gentleman about it.
Judgments about where a patient should go must rest with doctors, and they will remain with them. Of course, the first-year budgets are based on existing referral practices, so I doubt whether there will be much change in


the first year. However, if doctors wish to change, any effect will be taken into account in their costs in the second year because there will be further negotiation on their budget at the end of the first year.

Mr. Christopher Gill: My right hon. Friend will be aware of my concern to improve management in the national health service. Is not the significance of making general practitioners fund holders the fact that they are put in a position better to manage their practices, thereby putting authority and responsibility into the same pair of hands?

Mr. Waldegrave: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. I have visited a good many proposed and actual GP fund-holding practices. What impresses one most is the closeness of the team work between health professionals and managers in those practices. We shall see an expansion of the work done in local health centres. We shall also see perhaps a wider range of services available to patients. For example, there is no reason why a GP fund holder should not buy services for his patients in the private sector if he believes that that would be better for his patients. There will be wider patient choice as well as the other benefits.

Mr. Allen McKay: Will a record be kept to show whether such practices increase their referrals to hospitals? If a general practice is continually over budget, what effect will that have on the thinking of those involved; and if it does not have any effect, why have a budget in the first place?

Mr. Waldegrave: On the hon. Gentleman's second point, as I have said, there will be a renewed negotiation each year about the budget based on the outturn of the preceding year. The point of the budget is that the GP fund holder can shift resources between different heads, which he cannot do at the moment, and thus will have much greater freedom to spend.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether there will be an increase or decrease in referrals. I expect—several practices have told us this—that there will be a decrease in referrals because a number of minor surgical procedures, for which GPs are now paid, may well be performed at the practice surgery, which is often what patients want. Therefore, there will not necessarily be an increase in referrals. The opposite may well be the case.

Mr. Andrew Mitchell: Are not the Government to be congratulated, not least on the extra money that they have made available for computerisation? Does my right hon. Friend agree that, many doctors who feared the advent of computerisation have now had computers installed and cannot understand how they ever managed in the past without them?

Mr. Waldegrave: I know that my hon. Friend is well briefed on such matters. The coming of a proper information base for the health service is an absolutely vital investment for the future and is enabling not only GPs but the rest of the health service far more powerfully to manage resources for the benefit of the patients.

Mr. Gerald Bermingham: Does the Secretary of State agree that, when calculating the budgets for the necessary administrative costs in both rural and semi-rural practices, which, because of their nature and catchment areas, are much smaller, great care should be

taken to ensure that the appropriate administrative costs are built into the budgeting scheme, so that patients in rural and semi-rural areas are not disadvantaged?

Mr. Waldegrave: I thoroughly accept the hon. Gentleman's point. We shall be sensitive to that.

Mr. Andy Stewart: Included in my right hon. Friend's statement is a leading health centre in my constituency, which has been pioneering preventive and community health care but which is concerned about reports that the drugs budget will be based on 1989 figures rather than on 1990 figures. Will my right hon. Friend confirm what he said to my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), and that drugs are included in what he said?

Mr. Waldegrave: Certainly. The most up-to-date figures will be used, whatever they may be at the time. I confirm what I said—that if the outline budget does not cover clinically necessary prescribing, that expenditure can be met from regional health authority reserves.

Mr. Eric Illsley: Is the Secretary of State aware that there have recently been problems when GPs have refused to prescribe high-cost drugs because of their fears that that high cost will have to be met from their budget? Will he implement any further safeguards in relation to the prescribing of high-cost drugs, especially child growth hormone? The right hon. Gentleman might be aware of the recent refusal by a Chester GP to prescribe such a drug. Will he make sufficient funds available to ensure that GPs do not refuse to take on to their lists patients who need high-cost drugs?

Mr. Waldegrave: With respect, the problem is not quite as the hon. Gentleman has stated it. In certain instances, there is a problem of hospitals wishing to pass on to GPs the cost of prescribing high-cost drugs. Some GPs are rightly, in clinical terms, refusing that, because the patient is not under their direction. We have no plans to change the arrangements in that respect. General practitioners remain uncash-limited in their prescribing.

Mrs. Edwina Currie: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, in retrospect, the reform of general practice will turn out to be one of the best things that this Government have done? Will he encourage GPs in Derbyshire, who have been a little hesitant, to take on board the reforms that he has announced today on the basis that if one wants to improve immunisation rates, one must immunise children; if one wants to do something about heart disease, one has to take blood pressure readings and encourage people to give up smoking; and if one wants the better management of resources, the GPs should be willing to do that themselves?

Mr. Waldegrave: I agree strongly with my hon. Friend. I have noted that there are now useful leaflets in the surgeries of a number of practices with which I am familiar setting out the improvements that have been made in the practice and in the services available to the patients. I note also the irony that many of the things for which GPs are now rightly taking credit are the things about the relative merits of which GPs expressed a certain amount of scepticism when we first asked for them.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: On at least two occasions, the Minister has been asked what would happen


if the money ran out in a budget-holding practice. He answered to the effect that it could get the money from the regional health authority. On occasions, regional health authorities run into debt; they have no balances. If the region is in difficulties, what guarantee will the Secretary of State give that the money will be paid? One thing is certain: if the Tories are lucky enough to win the next election, this statement is a prelude to charging patients for going to the doctor.

Mr. Waldegrave: One thing that is certain is that that is not the case. I have answered the question twice already. If procedures or costs arise which were not predicted when the budget was set, the GP fund holder can go to the region for the cost.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. We have a ten-minute Bill after this. I shall allow questions to continue for a further five minutes. If hon. Members ask brief questions, they will all be called, after which I shall call the Front-Bench spokesmen.

Mr. Kenneth Hind: Budget holding will be an essential element in making the internal market work. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is probably aware that none of the practice budgets that he has approved today is in my constituency, as my constituency is predominantly rural. My constituents are deprived of the improved opportunities of budget holding. What is the average size of the practices which are in the pilot study? In future will practices with 6,000 patients or fewer have budget-holding status?

Mr. Waldegrave: Of course, a route is available to smaller practices in rural areas to seek fund holding. They can group together. A number have done so in rural areas. I recommend that route to GPs in my hon. Friend's constituency. As I said, we shall examine several studies of practices of the size to which my hon. Friend referred to determine whether it would be sensible to reduce the threshold level overall.

Mr. Barry Field: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that GP fund holders on the Isle of Wight have one of the highest percentages in the Wessex region, if not the whole United Kingdom? Does he agree that that shows that the anxieties expressed by the doctors were misplaced and that budget holding will promote a dialogue between district health authorities and GPs which will be to the benefit of all patients? What assurance can he give to that tiny minority of luckless patients who are on the lists of doctors who are more interested in politics than in patients?

Mr. Waldegrave: I can give one example. It is a small matter but it happened to arise in my hon. Friend's constituency; it shows how the scheme is working on more important matters. The GP fund holders asked that if patients were kept waiting for more than half an hour they should be given a cup of tea. The hospitals said, "What about the other people?" The district health authorities said, "In that case, we shall give everybody a cup of tea." That is exactly how GP fund holding is working. Practices suggest improvements—my example was a small but not insignificant matter—which are then adopted more widely.

Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that budget practices will receive £16,500 in grant towards preparation and up to £33,000 for management costs and that the cost of the computer hardware will be completely reimbursed, including training and maintenance costs? Does he agree that that means that resources are following the ideas of the Government?

Mr. Waldegrave: My hon. Friend is entirely right. My predecessor won the resources to make the scheme work well. It is working well, and it will bring benefits to patients.

Mr. John Bowis: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the announcement that he is prepared to consider allowing practices with smaller patient lists to qualify for this excellent scheme is particularly welcome? Will he bear in mind the fact that not only rural areas have the problem? In inner city areas such as mine, with a moving and changing population and a high turnover in patient lists, if doctors are to meet the other targets which they have rightly been set, they cannot take on additional patients to qualify under the present scheme.

Mr. Waldegrave: I confirm what my hon. Friend says. There are smaller practices in inner urban areas to which the same route to GP fund holding is available. I know that many of them are exploring that option.

Mr. David Evans: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Labour party, which is supposed to care about the health service, gave up an opportunity to debate it this afternoon? Is it not a fact that under the Government——

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must ask a question about the statement.

Mr. Evans: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, under this Government, there are more GPs, more nurses, more patients—more everything? We are the party of hot money and the Labour party is the party of hot air.

Mr. Waldegrave: I could not have put it better than my hon. Friend, although I must admit that there has been a cut in one thing—the size of GP lists, which is good for patients, who receive more attention from GPs.

Mr. Robin Cook: As the Secretary of State chose to query my figure of 850 GP practices having expressed an interest last March, may I advise him that I took that figure from a press release issued by his predecessor, which was no doubt unwise? Will the Secretary of State advise the House whether he got the figure wrong today or his predecessor got it wrong last March? Will he also confirm that each of those 850, or 950, practices received £16,000 for the start-up cost of becoming a fund holding practice? As two thirds of them have withdrawn their interest, what value for money did he get for the £9 million that went to those that have withdrawn?

Mr. Waldegrave: This is not a tremendously important point. I was trying to help the hon. Gentleman by showing that there were more initial telephone calls of interest than he said. Many of the applicants dropped out because the threshold meant they were ineligible. I am advised that the answer to the hon. Gentleman's question is that, when the press release was issued, another 100 practices applied.

BILL PRESENTED

MYALGIC ENCEPHALOMYELITIS

Mr. Jimmy Hood, supported by Mr. Alan Meale, Mr. Don Dixon, Mr. Martin Redmond, Mr. Jerry Hayes, Mrs. Margaret Ewing, Mr. James Wallace, Mr. John McAllion, Mr. Ian McCartney, Mr. Frank Haynes, Mr. Thomas Graham and Mr. Jimmy Wray, presented a Bill to make provision for an annual report to Parliament on matters relating to myalgic encephalomyelitis, including progress made in investigating the causes, effects and treatment of the disease, diagnostic practice and information derived from national epidemiological surveys: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 19 April and to be printed. [Bill 110.]

Statutory Instruments &c.

Mr. Speaker: With the leave of the House, I shall put together the Questions on two motions relating to statutory instruments.

Ordered,
That the draft Houses in Multiple Occupation (Charges for Registration Schemes) Regulations 1991 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.
That the draft Dangerous Vessels (Northern Ireland) Order 1991 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.[Mr. Wood.]

Education (Publication of Examination Results)

Mr. Andrew Mitchell: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require schools and certain further and higher education establishments to make available for publication in common form all public examination results.
I have much pleasure in moving this ten-minute Bill, which will require schools to make available for publication in common form all public examination results. It is a modest measure which, if passed by the House, would make a further contribution to the Government's successful step-by-step approach to the reform of education in Britain.
One of the most important aspects of those reforms has been to help switch the emphasis of education away from the providers, the educationists and education authorities, towards the consumers—the parents and children. That important change is at the heart of our reforms. It is noticeable how often outright provider resistance to change has softened as public support and approval has grown. The Bill takes that reform process one small step further forward. It will lead to local papers publishing some form of league table to show that some schools have better academic and vocational results than others.
Before I explore the reason why opposition to the proposal among some educationists is bogus, wrong and thoroughly patronising to the vast majority of parents, I shall give the central reasons why the full publication of exam results in schools is necessary and will be welcomed. First, the chances in life for children—what they do and what they achieve—are, in considerable part, determined by their academic and vocational results. Their GCSE and A-level results determine whether they go on to further and higher education. Academic and vocational achievement opens doors to opportunity, the lack of it closes those same doors. Parents and children have a right to know what sort of results a school achieves in comparison to other schools in the district.
While individual testing gives a parent an objective answer to the question, "How is my child doing?", the publication of examination results gives an objective answer to the question to which every parent should receive an answer and which he or she has an absolute right to ask: "How good are the academic and vocational results achieved by this school?".
A further reason for publishing in aggregate the examination results of each school is that we need to go back to the first purpose of education in our schools—academic and vocational education, literacy and numeracy. Schools may have different values and emphases. Some may place particular emphasis on music or art, but their first purpose must be academic and vocational education.—[Interruption.] This emphasis on standards is important to us, but clearly it is of no interest to Opposition Members who are muttering.
To deny such education is a betrayal of the opportunities that our children deserve to receive arid which they need to equip themselves for the real world after they leave school. Such a transparently obvious truth may have been descredited during the pink liberal fads and fashions of the 1960s, but mercifully that is no longer so.
The first argument against the Bill is that parents cannot be trusted with such information. That argument is advanced by some academics and educationists lurking in their ivory towers. More recently, it was advanced by the chairman of the education committee, in a letter to the Nottinghamshire Evening Post which covers my constituency. We are fortunate that many of our schools in Nottinghamshire are of a high quality. That has everything to do with the hard work and commitment of the vast majority of our teachers, staff and parents, and rather less to do with Nottinghamshire education authority.
In his letter, the chairman of the education committee states:
Raw exam results unrefined for socio-economic factors give a false impression of performance.
That is absolute nonsense. The whole point is that they do give a precise impression of performance. As I have said, the argument has been advanced that parents cannot be trusted to interpret examination results. Most parents do not want excuses for under-performance. They do not want to know why the socio-economic make-up of their school means that it is not as good as a neighbouring one. They want the best for their children.
If a school is under-performing, we need to look at ways of improving it, not at ways of excusing it. The argument that parents cannot be trusted to read examination results aright, to place them in their correct context and to weigh up school's academic merit alongside its other achievements in sport or art or whatever, is complete nonsense. It is also odiously patronising to the good sense and concern of parents for their children's success at school, qualities which characterise the vast majority of parents whom I meet and speak to in my constituency.
The second argument against the Bill is that downtown areas cannot compete with better areas, that low socio-economic grouping must mean under-achievement in class. Of course, in some inner-city areas, teachers face desperately difficult problems in educating children, but equally, there is no correlation between home background and intelligence. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Sir R. Boyson) has made clear, the Gujerati community in this country achieves higher academic

results than practically any other group in the host community. Social mobility follows educational mobility, and we must promote and extend opportunity for as many children as possible, rather than looking for excuses to explain bad education.
When we ask an educationist whether standards in our schools are rising or falling, we tend to receive a witheringly patronising reply. We are told that that is a naive or simplistic question. But it is a most important question, and it should be at the centre of our national debate on education. The claims by some people that examinations and testing are divisive are simply wrong. Such tests identify children who may have fallen short of an acceptable educational standard, so that prompt action can be taken where it is needed and before it is too late.
I hope that the House will accept the Bill as a minor but helpful measure, which will assist in identifying schools that need help. It will give to parents and local communities further useful and additional information by which to judge how schools are doing and it will help to extend choice and opportunity by leading to an improvement in standards in all our schools.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Andrew Mitchell, Sir Rhodes Boyson, Sir Giles Shaw, Mr. Julian Critchley, Mr. George Walden, Mr. James Pawsey, Mr. Robert G. Hughes, Mr. Anthony Coombs, Mr. Dudley Fishburn, Mr. John Bowis, Mr. Michael Brown and Mr. William Hague.

EDUCATION (PUBLICATION OF EXAMINATION RESULTS)

Mr. Andrew Mitchell accordingly presented a Bill to require schools and certain further and higher education establishments to make available for publication in common form all public examination results: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 22 March and to be printed. [Bill 111].

Mr. Robert Hughes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it possible to make it clear that the Bill that has just been presented is supported by Robert G. Hughes, not Robert Hughes?

Mr. Speaker: I am sure that Hansard will pick up the point that the Bill is supported by Robert G. Hughes.

Opposition Day

9TH ALLOTTED DAY

Poll Tax (Abolition)

Mr. Bryan Gould: I beg to move,
That this House believes that the poll tax is beyond reform and must be abolished immediately; condemns the Government's dithering and delay in carrying out yet another review and its reluctance to face the fact that the poll tax must go; warns against any attempt to retain the essential elements of the poll tax in another guise, either alone or in combination with another tax: and urges the Government to replace the poll tax with a property-based tax, linked to the ability to pay, along the lines of Labour's Fair Rates proposals.

Mr. Speaker: I must announce to the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister. A large number of hon. Members wish to participate in this most important debate. I have no authority to limit speeches in a half-day debate, but if hon. Members will
confine their speechs to not more than 10 minutes each, a large number of them will be called. Perhaps the Front-Bench speakers will take only a little longer.

Mr. Phillip Oppenheim: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: What possible point of order can there be in that?

Mr. Oppenheim: The point of order relates directly to the motion. I shall be brief, but I seek your guidance, Mr. Speaker. You will be aware that, on 17 July 1811, your illustrious predecessor, Speaker Abbot, ruling on the debate on the Gold Coin and Banknote Bill, said this:
If hon. Members open their journals they will find it established 200 years ago, and then spoken of as ancient practice, that a personal interest in a question disqualified a Member from voting.
"Erskine May" has clearly interpreted that ruling as follows:
No Member who has a direct pecuniary interest in a question is allowed to vote upon it; but, in order to operate the disqualification, this interest must be immediate and personal.
Mr. Speaker, you will be aware that many Labour Members who are top rate taxpayers are none the less laying extra burdens on people who are far less well off by not paying the poll tax. Surely nothing could be more clear than that they should be disqualified from voting on the motion.

Mr. Speaker: I have seldom heard anything more spurious. The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that we are all subject to paying the community charge and if I ruled as he seems to be suggesting, nobody would be able to vote.

Mr. Robert G. Hughes: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. William Ross: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I have already said that this is not a point of order.

Mr. Ross: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Not everyone in the House is liable to pay the poll tax. Are we to infer from the point of order that the only people who can vote on the motion are hon. Members representing Northern Ireland constituencies?

Mr. Hughes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that this is not as bogus as the first point of order.

Mr. Hughes: This is a different but related point of order, Mr. Speaker. Will you reconsider your view? On Monday night, when Lambeth council discussed the community charge that it was to set, two councillors who had not paid their community charge were debarred from voting because they had a pecuniary interest in the matter. Therefore——

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is not Lambeth council.

Mr. Hughes: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to pursue this point, he should reflect on what I said to the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Mr. Oppenheim). If I ruled as he wished, no hon. Member would be able to vote, except those representing Northern Ireland constituencies.

Mr. Hughes: This is relevant because we make the Standing Orders by which the House works and we make the standing orders by which Lambeth council works—[Interruption.] That is true. With great respect, that is the local government law. We make those standing orders and we make these Standing Orders. On page 384 of the 21st edition of "Erskine May"—this is a separate reference from that made by my hon. Friend——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have heard enough. The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that he is not making a good point. If he seeks to be called in the debate, let him make the points then.

Mr. Hughes: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I must ask the hon. Gentleman to resume his seat.

Mr. Richard Tracey: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I hope that it is legitimate.

Mr. Tracey: It is a serious point. On Monday night, Lambeth council——

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is not legitimate.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: rose——

Mr. Speaker: I hope it is not about Lambeth council.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: I am not referring to Lambeth council, but to the fact that you, Mr. Speaker, are unable to hear the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Surbiton (Mr. Tracey) because of the noise from the Opposition Benches—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I heard clearly enough.

Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: I spy strangers from Lambeth council.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that is a joke.

Mr. Gould: We have just seen evidence, if further evidence were required, of how the poll tax issue has turned the Conservative party into an undisciplined rabble. [Interruption.] I see and hear that a large number of Conservative Members wish to clothe themselves in the cloak of Lambeth council and are chanting that name, presumably as a justification for their disreputable behaviour.
It was Marx who in 1852 observed that history repeats itself, the first time as tragedy and the second time as farce. The Government's difficulties over the poll tax show that on that issue, as on others, Marx did not get it right. We have had the tragedy and the farce, but they have not followed the one after the other; the tragedy and the farce have been running side by side.
The tragedy is epitomised by the misery of one of my constituents, an elderly widow, who broke down in tears in front of me a couple of weeks ago because she was so worried about being unable to pay her poll tax. That was a personal tragedy which has been repeated on countless occasions all over the country. That personal misery, created for so many people, is one of the worst consequences of the hated and unfair tax.
The tragedy is there, too, in the closure of day nurseries and luncheon clubs for the elderly, in the cuts which go deep into education and social services, and in the assault made on local government independence and on the blighted life chances of those who depend on local government services.
At the same time there is a long-running farce. All the familiar ingredients are there: an improbable plot, deep-dyed villains, the hero as nincompoop, all the major characters—in this case Ministers—at one time or another with egg on their faces, Ministers caught with their trousers down, Ministers coming and going with bewildering rapidity, Ministers misunderstanding each other and at cross-purposes. The pity of it all is that this farce prompts not laughter but disbelief and despair.

Mr. Keith Mans: rose——

Mr. Gould: No, I will make some progress first.
The farce has reached a new intensity in recent days. Not a day goes by without some new idea, each more ludicrous than the last, being floated from Government sources. We have had the head tax, the floor tax, the skull tax, the bed-and-breakfast tax, the capital values tax and the bedroom tax. In their anxiety to do something, to tax something—anything, as long as it is not the poll tax—it has seemed at times that there is not a single architectural feature or part of the anatomy that the Government have not considered taxing. It would not be surprising if someone had come up with the brilliant idea of a thumb tax, simply because it sounded vaguely familiar. We are now told that the most likely option is a return to a property tax. One could call it a head tax followed by a "stand on your head" tax.
The source of many of these ideas is, I believe, the Secretary of State himself. His problem has never been a shortage of ideas—they keep flowing ever more ludicrously—but that his ideas are immediately dropped, usually by himself. Indeed, he drops them as fast and as frequently as Bryan Rix used to drop his trousers.
At least the Secretary of State is in a stronger position than the Prime Minister', a political leader—sadly, absent this afternoon—who on all these matters seems to take as his motto:
They tell me I must be more decisive but you'll have to be patient for a little while I think about it.
This is the Prime Minister who was a staunch supporter, and one of the principal architects, of the poll tax, but who confirmed on the subject of the poll tax as he moved into No. 10 that he did not know what they could do and nor did anyone else.
With what relief must that Prime Minister, bereft of ideas himself, have handed the whole task over to his Secretary of State—a case of the blonde leading the bland. How disappointed he must have been at the Secretary of State's failure to bring forward a single idea which commands majority support even in his own party, let alone in the country as a whole. So the Prime Minister has at last decided to take a hand.
Last Friday we had the announcement that the Clark Kent of No. 10 had finally decided to wear his underpants outside his trousers. The announcement was startling in its directness. The Prime Minister was reported as saying, "My mind is moving." But there was more, much more. The Prime Minister went on to say:
I think I know which way it's moving.
But before we all got carried away by this display of decisiveness came the bad news: he would not tell us where it was moving to.
This is an amazing spectacle. A Government who have been in office for 12 years, who have made the so-called reform of local government finance a major plank of their programme, who have arrogantly rejected advice from all quarters and who have carried out three fundamental reviews of their own policy, are now reduced to mumbled incoherence, unable to offer a single sensible word on the subject.

Mr. Robin Squire: If we can return to reality from oratory, will the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) simply state, for a constituency which he knows I know very well, what the occupier of an average semi-detached house in Dagenham will pay under his proposals this year or next?

Mr. Gould: I will gladly come to that question—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] In this House we make our own speeches. Let me answer the hon. Gentleman. My constituents, as those elsewhere, would pay less under our proposals than under the poll tax.

Mr. John Bowis: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Gould: This is a Government who apparently pride themselves on their competence. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer".] Never fear, I shall come to the question and I shall enjoy explaining, not just to the rabble opposite, but——

Hon. Members: Answer.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. I remind the House that this is a short debate and that interruptions inevitably prolong speeches.

Mr. Gould: I shall enjoy answering that question when I come to the appropriate passage in my speech.

Mr. James Pawsey: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) has been asked a question which he has not answered.

Mr. Gould: We see illustrated yet again the desperation on the Conservative Benches.
This is a Government who apparently pride themselves on their competence, but who have wasted £10 billion of taxpayers' money on an ill-fated poll tax experiment which they are now prepared to abandon but which they cannot summon up the courage to dismiss.

Mr. Bowis: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Gould: No, I am sorry. If the hon. Gentleman can persuade his colleagues to behave themselves, I might be more generous in giving way.
This is a party which professes to be pragmatic but where those prepared to die in the last poll tax ditch are taking their stand on purely ideological grounds. This is a party which has a legendary reputation for unity, but which is now, before our very eyes, cracking up along fault lines which run deep and damagingly, and every statement on the poll tax is contradicted by another member of the same party.

Mr. Bowis: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Gould: This is a party whose members, including the hon. Gentleman who is so anxious to intervene, are queueing up in the television studios to contradict each other and argue the toss. Each new leak of Government intentions is accompanied by threats of resignation, although not yet, I see—or hear—from the Minister, or refusals to go through the Division Lobbies.
The Secretary of State's problem is that there is clearly a majority——

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Gould: I am sorry, but I am not giving way.
The Secretary of State's problem is that there is clearly a majority in the Cabinet against the poll tax, but he is unable to produce a majority for any alternative. That is presumably why he is so vulnerable to the rearguard action that is being so fiercely fought by the poll tax ideologues. That is why the danger is that he will feel the need to throw a sop to his poll tax opponents which may lead to the survival of the poll tax with all its disadvantages and unfairnesses, even if under a new guise.
Those ideologues defend their position by calling in aid a number of propositions which simply do not stand up to examination. First, they assert that the problems of the poll tax are entirely the result of high spending by local authorities, and in particular by Labour-controlled local authorities.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Gould: Let me develop the point.
That cannot be sustained for a single moment. It has been consistently rejected, to their great credit, by Tory councillors throughout Britain, not least by the Tory-controlled local authority associations—the Association of District Councils and the Association of County Councils. Even this year's figures give the lie to that false proposition. They show that the Conservative councils have overshot their assumed or target poll tax

figures fixed by the Government by more than Labour councils have done—by 13·9 per cent., compared with 12 per cent., by £44·72 compared with £43·93. Moreover, Tory councils have, on average, gained £30·70 per head from the new safety net arrangements, whereas Labour councils have suffered a net loss of 59p per head. That difference alone—not any difference in spending commit-ments—has apparently allowed Tory councils to set increases lower than those set by Labour councils.
When it comes to exceeding the capping criteria, the picture is very similar. Not only have Tory councils, like those in Warwickshire, Somerset, Berkshire, and even Langbaurgh, found it impossible to budget within the capping limits that have been set, but dozens of smaller Tory district councils have been saved from capping only by the fact that their budgets fall below the £15 million threshold.

Mr. John Evans: Wandsworth council is held up by Conservatives as a paragon of virtue. Is my hon. Friend aware that that council receives a total of £843 per adult in revenue support grant, whereas for St. Helens the figure is £357—a difference of £468? Is not that corruption?

Mr. Gould: My hon. Friend will know very well that that point is made not just by hon. Members on these Benches but by our political opponents throughout the country, including those in London itself, who are very clear about the special treatment that has allowed Wandsworth to fail to take account of local government matters and to go in for a prolonged bout of political posturing. There is no comfort there for poll tax supporters.
To find out what has gone wrong, we do not need to go much beyond the high administrative costs and the low collection levels, both of which are attested to in the very bleak report published today by the Audit Commission. We need not go beyond the Government's deliberate attempts to pretend that local government spending commitments are lower than they actually are. The differences are there. That is the problem with the poll tax. Those problems do not arise from party differences.

Mr. Holt: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for having mentioned Langbaurgh. He may have given the House and everybody else the impression that the local authority there is Conservative-controlled. It is not. No party has overall control. Every measure of fiscal prudence that the Conservatives sought to introduce has been outvoted by a combination of Labour and Liberal councillors, who have a majority. This year, Conservative-administered Langbaurgh council has reduced its expenditure by £16 per head. By contrast, Labour-controlled Cleveland county council has increased its expenditure by £83 per head. That is the problem from which my people are suffering.

Mr. Gould: I am not at all surprised that the hon. Gentleman should try to get out of his difficulties. One can see why the Tories cannot command a majority—and thank heavens for that. Nevertheless, the council is run by the Tories, and it is their budget that has exceeded the capping level.
Those vociferous hon. Members who continue to support the poll tax make great play of the supposedly great and essential principle of the tax—that everybody


should pay something. Whatever is done to present the poll tax in a new guise, we are told that that principle is sacrosanct. It is time to debunk that so-called principle for the nonsense that it truly is. The claim is often made that the merit of the poll tax is that it catches 36 million payers, whereas only 18 million people paid rates. That point has never been more effectively rebutted than by the Secretary of State himself when he pointed out that rates were paid by many more people than the 18 million ratepayers, since many households treated the rates bill like any other household bill—gas or electricity—and made their own informal arrangements to share it out.
Let us face the argument head on. Is it really claimed as a virtue of the poll tax that it seeks to squeeze blood out of a stone, that it demands that people with literally no income—people such as pensioner wives—should pay? On closer examination, it is clear that that supposed virtue is the principal defect of this hated tax. Not only is it immoral and unfair, not only does it cause untold misery and worry; it is simply and wildly impracticable.
As the Audit Commission made clear in its report of 11 January, the costs of trying to extract payment from those with little or no income cannot be recouped from the pitifully small revenue thereby raised. For that reason, the Audit Commission recommends that, on practical grounds, the principle should be dropped. The supposedly great and ineluctable principle, for which it is said that all other deficiencies of the poll tax must be forgiven, is thereby revealed as a moral fraud and a practical nonsense.
In the last resort, we can be sure—and especially sure in view of the rabble that we have heard this afternoon—that the defenders of the poll tax will have recourse to that false proposition, which has served this Government so well over the years, that terrible though their policy may be, there is no alternative. That proposition is false—there is an alternative. We published our "Fair Rates" proposals in July last year——

Mr. David Wilshire: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Pieces of paper have been produced and are being waved by Labour Members. Perhaps my eyesight is becoming a little dim, but those papers appear to be blank on the front. Is any information available about detail and money?

Mr. Gould: The blank is in Conservative party policy and in the hon. Gentleman's mind. The proposition——

Mr. Bowis: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Gould: No. I have been pressed to say what is in our document, and I intend to do so.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for hon. Members to bring final poll tax demands into the House and wave them in the air?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is not a point of order, it is a point of debate.

Mr. Gould: The House will understand that we have had to endure so many false points of order that it would be stretching my generosity were I to allow any further interventions.
The proposition that we have no alternative to the poll tax is false. We published our "Fair Rates" proposals in July last year. We sent copies to the Prime Minister and to the Secretary of State. So real and workable an alternative do our proposals provide, so difficult have they been to challenge, that our opponents have not dared to attack them. They have been reduced to pretending that they do not exist. They do exist, and they set out the only practicable way in which we see the back of the poll tax within the coming year.
Our proposals follow a course that most observers have concluded to be the only way forward. They offer a solution which The Times last Monday described as
mildly progressive … a modest disincentive to extravagance … an encouragement to sub-let, a lever"——

Mr. Bowis: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In last month's New Statesman and Society, the hon. Gentleman mentioned that his policy was a policy for——

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is clearly a point of debate, not a point of order.

Mr. Gould: I must repeat the point——

Mr. Roger King: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I shall, of course, take genuine points of order, but not bogus ones. This is a short and important debate. I hope that the hon. Gentleman wishes to raise a genuine point of order.

Mr. King: I think that it is genuine, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) has introduced into the debate a document that is being waved about by Opposition Members. If a document is to be introduced into a debate, should it not be made freely available to all hon. Members? Is it not correct that, if a document is introduced in the manner adopted by the hon. Gentleman, it must be described in detail—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. As hon. Members have crossed the Floor to give the hon. Gentleman a copy of the document, he appears to have his answer.

Mr. Gould: When the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King) can finally bring himself to read the document—I am sure that Conservative Ministers have read it, as they appear to be aiming at a similar solution —he will find that what we propose is set out in considerable detail, and that it is very much supported by all those who have commented on the issue.
The Times last Monday described our solution as
mildly progressive … a modest disincentive to extravagance — an encouragement to sub-let, a lever of local democratic accountability, hard to evade and cheap to collect".
What we propose is, indeed, a modernised rates system, with all the advantages of an existing system—a tried and tested system that we know works. We propose a modernised rates system, brought up to date and made fairer by being related to ability to pay.
Our proposals have the merit—I invite Conservative Members to listen carefully—of benefiting seven out of 10 families. They promise, and will provide, lower bills than could ever be the case under the poll tax for at least five good reasons.

Mr. Bill Walker: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I draw your attention to the motion on the Order Paper and the amendment in the name of my


right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. Is this debate about the community charge throughout the United Kingdom, and as it applies to Scotland? If so, in what way can we relate Scottish matters to either the motion or the amendment?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: There is nothing out of order, and Scottish matters are relevant to the debate.

Mr. Bruce Grocott: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As there has been a clear and sustained attempt to disrupt the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) by an organised rabble on the Conservative Benches, and as Conservative Members have already been set a bad example by a Secretary of State who waves the Mace, and as they are clearly upset at the prospect of being obliged to stand on their heads within the next few weeks, could you guide us on how we should behave when the Secretary of State makes his speech? Should we adopt the same disruptive tactics? If so, can we have your assurance that you will be as liberal with us as you have been with them?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Let us get on with the debate.

Mr. Gould: I am amazed that Conservative Members, most of whom have been here for some time, have not yet discovered that the performance that they are putting on this afternoon does them far more damage than it does us.
Our proposals have the merit of benefiting seven out of 10 families. They promise, and will provide, lower bills than could ever be the case under the poll tax, for at least five good reasons.

Mrs. Edwina Currie: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Gould: No. I am sure that the hon. Lady is anxious to hear the detail of our policy.
First, the rates—a property-based tax—are cheaper to collect, and, on independent judgments, lower administrative costs will save between £300 million and £400 million a year. Secondly, the rates—a property-based tax—are hard to avoid and are undeniably more widely accepted, which means, on all the evidence, that higher collection levels would produce up to £1·4 billion over the very low collection levels for the poll tax. Thirdly, rates are broadly progressive. All those on average and lower incomes, who were hard hit by the flat-rate principle, will automatically benefit from reversing that process.
Fourthly, our extended rebate scheme will help those who traditionally have been disadvantaged by the rates, such as widows living in their family homes. Fifthly, the billions of pounds that the Government have had to spend on poll tax sweeteners could, under the rates system, be applied to achieving a better balance between central Government grant and local revenue-raising, thereby reducing bills across the board.

Mrs. Currie: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Gould: No.
The great advantage of what we propose is that it offers the only route to the immediate abolition of the poll tax. No one else and no other option on offer can deliver that outcome.
Even if the Government were to summon up the nerve to abolish the poll tax altogether, in a fit of unprecedented decisiveness, any replacement which involved new

administrative arrangements, new income tax rules or a new valuation register as a precondition for action, would ensure that we were stuck with the poll tax for the next two or three years.
Unless the Government are prepared to bite the bullet and concede that we must go back to the existing valuation register, at least as a first step, poll tax bills will keep on coming—not just this year, not just in 1992 or in 1993, but possibly even in 1994. That is the prospect that we now face. It hardly bears contemplating.

Mrs. Currie: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Gould: No. Will the hon. Lady please resume her seat as I shall not give way—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has made it quite clear that he is not giving way.

Mr. Tracey: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. To make this debate meaningful the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) must give comparative statistics for Dagenham.

Mr. Gould: The Conservative party—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I appeal to the House once more. This is a short debate. The hon. Member has made it quite clear that he does not intend to give way again and the House must respect that.

Mr. Kenneth Hind: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: No.

Mr. Gould: The prospect of the poll tax being in place for the next two or three years hardly bears contemplation. I speak not merely on behalf of millions of poll tax payers, who will view with dismay a Government who say—at least by implication—that the poll tax was a terrible mistake, but a mistake with which poll tax payers must live for another three years, but fearful for the future viability of local government. All the evidence shows that, with each successive year, the poll tax becomes less and less workable.
Today the Audit Commission has produced a report which is sober in its language but chilling in its conclusions. It is really saying that we are on the brink of a further and catastrophic descent down the vicious spiral of high costs, leading to high bills, leading to low collection levels, leading to yet higher costs, higher bills and fewer people who are willing or able to pay.
Imagine that drama played out against the backdrop of a Government who have conceded that the poll tax is no longer tenable and that it must be abandoned. How many people will feel like paying a hated and unfair tax for three years when even its supporters have denounced it and abandoned it? The prospect is truly horrifying.
Even a Government preoccupied with their immediate problems must spare a thought for the future viability of government in this country and for the chaos that they are on the threshold of creating. If the poll tax is to go—as I fervently hope it will—I implore the Government to recognise that it is best done quickly. We have just one chance to ensure that this year's poll tax bill will be the last. To take that chance will require the Conservative party to eat large quantities of words, hats and humble pie, but no


matter. If we are to rid ourselves of the poll tax with the minimum of damage, we must take the chance now. Delay at this stage would plunge us further into disaster.
That is why we offer the Government—my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition wrote to the Prime Minister yesterday—co-operation in legislation to overcome the poll tax. If the Government will agree to introduce a Poll Tax Abolition Bill and to adopt the staged approach that we have recommended so that we turn to rates as a first, and essential step to abolishing the poll tax, we shall be glad to sit down with the Government to discuss drafting the details of such a Bill. We promise co-operation to get that Bill speedily through the House this Session. This is a serious offer. It is the only chance of extricating ourselves from the poll tax mire and it offers the chance of doing so without doing further and terrible damage.
If the Government refuse the offer, they must take the responsibility for prolonging the poll tax for years to come and for plunging all of local government into unprecedented crisis.

Mr. Wilshire: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Gould: The Government have committed a crime —[Interruption.]——

Mr. Wilshire: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am not taking any further points of order.

Mr. Gould: The Government have committed a crime against the people of this country. The Government have refused to listen. They have insisted, against all the evidence, that the poll tax would work. The Government have run out of excuses, out of ideas, out of time and, on the evidence this afternoon, out of common sense.
The Government have a last chance to redeem themselves—a last chance to lance the festering poll tax boil. We offer the Government that chance, and I implore them to take it.

Dr. John Cunningham: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have been a Member of the House for almost 21 years and I have never—[Interruption]—and I shall be here longer. I have never witnessed such disgraceful scenes as I have seen today.
We can accurately describe the behaviour on the Government Benches as that of a rabble. What is more important, there have been between 10 and a dozen—[Interruption.]—it is the truth—there have been between 10 and a dozen bogus points of order. Conservative Members have trampled on the normal rules of debate and defied the authority of the Chair.
We are entitled to demand an examination of conduct on the Conservative Benches, which was witnessed by the Government Chief Whip, although he made no attempt to stop it. In the interests of the good name of parliamentary democracy, I ask you to report these matters to Mr. Speaker and to ask the Select Committee on Procedures to carry out an investigation into these matters so that we shall never have to tolerate them again.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: We all realise that this is a highly charged debate, but the House does itself no good by trying to debate serious matters against the background of noise.

The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Michael Heseltine): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
`welcomes the fact that the Government is undertaking a thorough review of local government finance, structure and functions; looks forward to a statement when that review has reached the appropriate stage; and in the meantime notes that, on information published to date the average community charge actually set by local authorities in England will be £393, and welcomes the generous provision made by the Government, by way of the community charge reduction scheme, community charge benefit and income support, the combined effect of which will be to reduce the average net charge actually payable next year to under £275.'.
I listened with great interest to the speech of the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould), because it is my responsibility to conduct on behalf of the Government the review of the functions, finance and structure of local government. It has been a disappointment to me that I have not been able to engage the Labour party in detailed discussion of its proposals. It is important that the country and the Government should, in reaching their judgment, be able to know how Labour calculates its way forward and what ideas it has.
I thank the hon. Member for Dagenham for taking us a stage further than before. Until now, we have had only the document "Fair Rates", which has attracted some publicity. One of its many characteristics is that it contains absolutely no references or any facts whatsoever, from one end of it to another. It was materially helpful when the hon. Gentleman told us that the basis of Labour's proposals is to ensure that seven out of 10 people will be better off. I believe that was the basis of the hon. Gentleman's remarks. I do not want in any way to put words into his mouth, but I heard him say that seven out of 10 people would be better off under Labour's proposals. —[HON. MEMBERS: "Households."] Very well. I willingly accept that the hon. Gentleman was referring to seven out of 10 households.
That was an extremely helpful observation, because it can only be made if the calculations have been done. I would find it extremely helpful to know, and would perhaps be influenced by, the underlying calculations that the hon. Gentleman has obviously made, to be able to make the statement that he did this afternoon.
I want to help the House a little further, and perhaps even the hon. Member for Dagenham. In fairness to him, he made one important substantiation of his claim. He referred to the collection of the community charge, and I do not want in any way to pretend that I am not looking at that aspect. It will not come as a surprise to the House if I make some observations later about the collection of the community charge by Labour authorities.
I want to share with the House the fascination of the review that we are undertaking. The hon. Gentleman's one substantiation was that there would be a saving of £1·4 billion. Let us assume, for the sake of argument, that the hon. Gentleman is able to introduce a system of local government finance that is so much more effectively


collected—[HON. MEMBERS: "It is called rates."] I am conceding for the hypothesis all the points that the hon. Member for Dagenham made.
Let us assume that the hon. Gentleman can actually achieve a saving of £1·4 billion. That would reduce the community charge by an average of £38—but if one takes the aggregate of all Labour authorities in the coming year, they have, on the latest evidence, increased their community charges by an average of £61. By what conceivable piece of naivety can a saving of £38 be turned into an economy, when Labour authority community charges are to increase on average by £61? That is the fascination of the review process.
The more that one examines the facts behind Labour's statements, the more one realises that either it has figures that it will not reveal, or, to quote the Leader of the Opposition, it thinks that the way to solve the problem is to shove the whole thing into a computer and hope that will deliver a solution.
The hon. Member for Dagenham, who so extensively suggested that we have not worked out the details, may like to tell the House whether he knows the figures. If he does, will he tell us what they are? If he does not know the figures, how can he claim that seven out of 10 households will gain from his proposals? Does the hon. Gentlemen know the answers? [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."].
Let us assume from the hon. Gentleman's silence that he does not have the figures, and refer again to the Labour document, "Fair Rates". Perhaps it is possible to understand from that publication why the hon. Member for Dagenham does not have the figures. For all the clarity that the hon. Gentleman suggests we should bring to the matter, the House will want to know the degree of clarity that Labour has brought to revaluing its property tax.
Page 3 of "Fair Rates" sets out for all who wish to read it the basis on which, and the precision with which, valuers will be instructed to do their job, and upon which the country at large will be able to understand, merely by glancing at the bills that come through their letter boxes, exactly how the calculations have been made. There can be no question that I am not quoting correctly this time, because I will quote directly from the document:
We will allow valuers to use a range of relevant factors to help in that task. Of course market price should be one of those factors, but as well, we will require them to take account of rebuilding costs, maintenance and repair costs, and private rents, in order to calculate a rateable value.
Does anyone seriously believe that such a formula will produce a system of local government that is comprehen-sible, let alone fair?
Labour has no idea. Those words could only have been devised to obfuscate the issue, and could only have come from a party that has been in opposition for so long that it has forgotten what government is all about.

Mr. Simon Hughes: I share the right hon. Gentleman's view that Labour's alternative has no credibility, because the document offers no figures, and Labour has never adduced figures for any constituency—be it Dagenham or anywhere else. Perhaps that is why Labour came third in the Ribble Valley referendum, not second. Does the Secretary of State accept that any system that entails collection costs in London of £500,000 per day is one that no Government can justify for a minute longer? Whatever else may come out of the

Government's thinking and the right hon. Gentleman's deliberations, are he and the Government clear that the poll tax must go?

Mr. Heseltine: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his view that he shares my approach to many matters. I believe that more and more people will come to see the position from precisely the same viewpoint. I have made it clear that we are considering as part of the review the question of collection—just as we are taking into account the Liberal Democrats' helpful suggestion that the problem would be more effectively dealt with by 7p or 8p on income tax. That would not pay the bills.
At least the Liberal party has come forward with a constructive alternative which has a price tag. We will address that when we conclude our review. I wholly respect the Liberal party's position. We know what the Liberal party stands for and we know the costs. However, the Labour party's position is different. Labour Members have used language to obscure what they stand for and they either do not know the costs or will not tell us what they involve.

Mr. Donald Dewar: Will the Secretary of State at least concede that, in view of the clear shift of opinion among Conservatives, in the press and among expert opinion, a property-based alternative to the poll tax is a real runner, with strong arguments in its favour? Will he also take from me a piece of mature advice? When he listens to the advice offered to him during the review process, will he not give too much weight to the opinion of the Secretary of State for Scotland, who does not speak for any significant body of opinion in Scotland on the poll tax and whose desperate efforts to preserve a tax which no Scot can abide is causing deep distress and resentment among his fellow countrymen?

Mr. Heseltine: If the hon. Gentleman believes so powerfully in the concept of a property tax, for which his party claims to stand, why will Labour Members not come and talk about it, so that we can understand the basis of their options?

Mr. Squire: I appeal to my right hon. Friend for assistance. With the entire resources of the Department of the Environment, can my right hon. Friend answer the very simple question that I posed more than half an hour ago, but which, for some reason or another, the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) failed to answer, despite saying that he would answer it? How much will the Labour party's proposals cost the average semi-detached or terraced household in Dagenham this year or next?

Mr. Heseltine: I must disappoint my hon. Friend. It is not within my Department's capacity to put accurate figures on the Labour party's proposals, because those proposals are deliberately designed to ensure that no one can do just that. The moral of the story is clear. The Labour party will not talk about its proposals precisely because we might ask about the costs and implications.
I want to remind the House of the fact that, from the very beginning, we set out to review the structure, functions and finance of local government. I do not believe that anyone can misunderstand the scale of the opportunity implied in that commitment. People with experience of local government have longed for such a commitment for many decades. There had been profound


concern that local government had been compartmen-talised in terms of finance and structure, without those compartments being brought together. We have begun to bring those aspects of local government together.
I have made it quite clear to the House that, by early April, I hoped that we would be able to narrow the focus of discussion and give an indication of the way in which the Government's mind was moving. The Labour party has constantly refused to take part in that process or to become involved in the wider issues affecting local government. Anyone who travels this country will be aware that the quality of service delivery, in the environment, in the state of much of our housing, the quality of education results, in unemployment levels and in the condition of our inner cities demands the kind of approach that the Government are bringing to the issue: asking fundamental questions about the ability of local government to deliver the services on which people depend.
It is self-evident that more and more people in all parties are worried about the ability to attract men and women into the service of local government. It is fundamentally important that we judge how we can give people local government within which quality of service can be delivered. After all, local government costs us about £40 billion a year. Yet all the Labour party does is try to reduce the issue to selective quotations or a non-dialogue on the vital issues involved.
We will continue with our review and with the timetable that we have proposed. We are determined that the matter will be conducted thoroughly and comprehensively. Listening to the Labour party, one would conclude that Labour Members have no problems with the delivery of the quality of service or the quality of councillor in their local government machinery. It is extraordinary that this debate should take place in the shadow of Lambeth's decision to set a record community charge of £590.

Mr. Brian Wilson: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Mr. Heseltine: No.
Do Labour Members genuinely believe that the hapless citizens of Lambeth are getting the highest quality of service for the highest community charge? Can anyone believe that, whatever system of local government is suggested by the Labour party, it can bring a sense of responsibility to Labour councillors in Lambeth? The Labour party must answer those questions if it is to have and credibility in its arguments.

Mr. John Fraser: If the Secretary of State is narrowing his focus onto Lambeth, is he going to cap Lambeth's poll tax? He will know that Lambeth's poll tax was based on an estimated collection rate of 82 per cent. When he comes to make his capping decision, what will he assume the collection rate to be?

Mr. Heseltine: The hon. Gentleman asks various questions about services in Lambeth. I remind him that on 29 January he said:
The borough's institutions are beginning to break down entirely.
The Labour party must address that point. The hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser) also asked about

capping. It might be helpful if I make my position clear not just in the context of one authority, but in regard to all the authorities that may come within the capping regime.
I have made it perfectly clear that I will not hesitate to use my powers to cap any authority that sets an excessive budget. Last year, authorities complained that they could not set their budgets with certainty, because they did not know what criteria we would use for capping. This year, we announced provisional criteria in advance. Perhaps not surprisingly, many authorities previously subjected to capping have suddenly found that they can make the necessary economies to allow them to budget just below those levels. There are of course a small number of exceptions. According to our present information, 17 authorities have set budgets above the provisional criteria. Among those is Lambeth, which yesterday set the highest community charge in the country, at £590·25.
Clearly it is a matter of concern whenever authorities choose to set budgets which, under the intended criteria, are excessive or represent an excessive increase. I can tell authorities that it is not too late for them to look again at their budgets, to re-examine the scope for savings and improving value for money and, in the light of that reappraisal, to set a new lower budget if they so wish. I should also make it clear that my present intention is to apply the criteria announced last October. Those intentions are, however, necessarily provisional until I take my capping decisions. I will take those decisions as soon as practical, taking account of all the appropriate considerations.

Mr. Fraser: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Heseltine: No, I shall not give way.
It was a part of the opening speech of the hon. Member for Dagenham that the broad issue of the setting of the community charge had no relevance to the political control of the authority concerned. Last year, we know that, whichever class of authority we dealt with, Labour authorities set significantly higher charges than any other political party, particularly the Conservatives. Based on the latest information available to me—that is, today—the same pattern exists. I am able to give the House the best information available at the moment, which clearly indicates that no matter which class of authority we deal with, where the Labour party is in control, charges will be significantly higher than where Conservatives are in control. I can understand that the Labour party does not want the figures, but it is important that they should be made available.
If we consider inner London and strip away the safety net so that we can see exactly what an authority is determining, Conservative inner-London authorities have set an average charge of £235. In Labour authorities the charge is £501. In outer-London boroughs, the Conservatives have set a charge of £369, and Labour £447. If one takes all of London, the Conservatives are £343, Labour at £478. If we take metropolitan districts, the Conservatives are £368, the Labour party £431. If we take the shire districts, the Conservatives are £364, the Conservatives £447—[Interruption.] I am sorry. That will be the day, but it is unlikely to dawn. In the shire districts the Conservatives are £364, Labour £447. If we take England at large, all Conservative-controlled areas have set a community charge of £367 on average. All Labour-controlled areas have set an average charge of


£445. Never let it be said that a Labour vote does not cost money. On average it costs £78 to vote Labour in terms of increased community charge.
The position remains as we have always known it. Opposition Members will not talk about their proposals. They will not cost their proposals. They just go on charging people more arid more. We will conclude our review. We will do it in our own time. We will do it thoroughly, and when we produce it I believe that we will command the support of the country.

Mr. James Lamond: I have been trying to hear the speech of the Secretary of State for the Environment. It was very difficult to do so, but certainly not because I was interrupting him. His speech seemed to consist not of an explanation of what he will do to help my constituents who are struggling to pay the poll tax, or even an apology for all the stress that he has put them through. He bellowed at the top of his voice a series of meaningless figures that are of no consequence to my constituents—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The House must be fair to the hon. Gentleman. It is very difficult to hear what he is saying.

Mr. Lamond: I was hoping to hear something that I could take back to my constituents who have been coming to my surgery and who have been writing to me about their difficulties with the poll tax. However, we have heard nothing that will be of assistance to them. Indeed, taking the Secretary of State's speech at face value, he thinks that all that is required of him is to defend the present position. One could almost imagine that he is content with what is happening and intends to carry on in the same way. If that is the impression that he intended to convey, he will be faced with a series of by-election results of the same order as his party had in Ribble Valley. The people are totally fed up with the poll tax.
The Secretary of State's comments rang ironically in my ears when he told us that he is examining the function, structure and financing of local government. As I have told him before, in the early 1970s he and I served on a Committee that examined the structure of local government in England and Wales. We pressed hard for local government financing to be included in our examination, but we were told time and again that that was a separate matter.
The right hon. Gentleman, who was a Minister at the time, did much work on the Committee, but he made as big a mess of the reorganisation of local government in England and Wales as he has made with the poll tax and in attempts to reorganise local government finance. Nineteen years later we are still talking about the changes that are needed to try to bring local government back to the state it was in before the right hon. Gentleman tampered with it. At that time, the trick was to begin the White Paper with the statement that the organisation of local government was discredited.
When the White Paper was published, I was a Labour councillor in the city of Aberdeen. All parties on the council sent me to express my opinion to the commission that was examining the matter. I said, "The White Paper states that everybody agrees that something must be done about local government. I do not agree. Why do you print

that? I speak for all councillors in Aberdeen who have experience in such matters." The same blind obstinacy and refusal to accept advice was apparent when the Government pressed ahead with the poll tax.

Mr. Tom Clarke: Does my hon. Friend share my disappointment and that of other Scottish hon. Members that, despite his high profile in the review, the Secretary of State for Scotland is not present? Many Scottish Members hope to say a great deal about Scotland.

Mr. Lamond: I understand my hon. Friend's disappointment, especially in view of the stance that the Secretary of State for Scotland has been reported as taking in the matter. He is reported to be one of the few remaining Cabinet Ministers who are prepared to defend the poll tax.
We have now been told that the rating system was discredited. I take the same stance on that matter as I took 19 years ago. I am a former treasurer of the city of Aberdeen. The rating system was not discredited. There was nothing wrong with the rating system. All the criticism that was aimed at it—about elderly ladies paying the same amount in rates as the half a dozen fully grown adults in the house next door, often earning exceptionally high wages, did not apply because if the elderly lady was genuinely in need, she was the recipient of generous rates rebates. Those rebates did not leave her with 20 per cent. of the bill to pay, as happens with the poll tax, because under the rating system the rebate could be 100 per cent.
When we raised with the Conservative party the question why a wealthy person should pay the same poll tax as, say, a gardener living in a small cottage when those two people clearly did not have the same financial status, we were told that a proportion of local government costs comes from centrally raised income tax. We were told, "The rich man is paying a lot more in contributions to central taxation than the gardener, so indirectly the rich man is paying a lot more towards the cost of local government." Did not the same argument apply to the half dozen adults who were working full-time and who lived next to that old lady? Of course it did.
I shall be brief and simply tell Conservative Members that they need not search high and low for an answer. If the rating system was so unfair, so blunt and hit the poor so badly, why did the Government gradually but tenaciously over their 11 years in office move the burden of local government finance from central Government to the local rating system? When they came into office, 60 per cent. of the costs of local government were met from central taxation. Anyone who believed that the central method was the fairest way of raising that finance would not have reduced its proportion to 45 per cent., as the Conservative Government have done over the years; they would have increased it from 60 per cent. to, say 70 per cent. so that the greatest burden was placed on the shoulders of those most able to pay. However, the Government did not do that; they shifted the burden and when, as a consequence, the rates had to rise, they then said that the rating system was discredited.
Scotland had revaluations at regular intervals, but the same did not happen in England and that, too, distorted the rating system. We understand that, of itself, a revaluation does not increase rates. However, as the years go by, it redistributes the burden more fairly.
The Government should bring back the rating system as an emergency measure, if nothing else. The valuation rolls exist.
We must do something to help the people who cannot pay. I am not speaking about those who can pay but who will not; the folk who concern me are those who come to my surgeries, such as pensioners, who cannot afford to pay but who wish to stay within the law. They are in tears about this. When Conservative Members howl and try to make fun of this debate, I wonder whether they realise the anxiety in the hearts of our constituents. They must because they have constituents of their own. So, let us look at the valuation roll. Let us bring back the rating system——

Mr. Wilshire: rose——

Mr. Lamond: No, I shall not give way again.
Let us shift the burden once more from local to central Government in the fairest possible way. Let us go forward in that way. From my experience as a city treasurer I can tell the Secretary of State, who has now left the Chamber, that people complained about the rates. Everybody complains about taxes of one sort or another. However, those complaints were nothing like as serious, loud, long and strong as the complaints about the poll tax. The Secretary of State should take my advice. Never mind looking at the poll tax for another six weeks, bringing his proposals before the Cabinet and all the rest of it. He should get on with abolishing it quickly and I can promise him that the Labour Front Bench will assist him in every way.

Mr. David Wilshire: I must advise the hon. Member for Oldham, Central and Royton (Mr. Lamond) that one of the main reasons why so many people are deeply upset about not being able to pay the community charge is that the bills they are receiving are wickedly inflated by the people who are refusing to pay, including Labour Members of Parliament and Labour councillors. The result of the Labour party's unwillingness to get to grips with that issue is that more and more will be added to the bills each year to take account of non-payment, and more and more people will be in tears. That is because of the policy of the Labour party.
Having said that, I address my main comments especially to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. If we are not careful, I believe that, as a party, we are in danger of indulging in what I can only call collective madness. We are in danger of being panicked by the Labour party and the media into throwing away the community charge without giving it another moment's thought. Having thus thrown it out, we are in danger of clutching at whatever comes past in the hope that it will do the trick. However, if we do that, we will have to have this debate all over again in two or three years' time. One of the most serious flaws when we introduced the community charge was that we did not think it through properly——

Mr. David Winnick: The hon. Gentleman served on the Committee.

Mr. Wilshire: I shall come to that in a moment.
If we panic now, we shall grab at something else that we have not thought through. Having said that, I am not about to make a defence of the community charge—[Interruption.]—and for one simple reason: because I understand—I am sure that all Opposition Members would like my right hon. and hon. Friends and me to understand this—that the message from Ribble Valley must be heeded. However, there is a grave danger of misunderstanding that message. If I understand it correctly, that message is that many people consider that the community charge is too high and many people perceive it as unfair. The message from the by-election was not about what the electors of Ribble Valley wanted instead; the message that came across loud and clear was simply people's view on the community charge. We as a party would be foolish not to respond to that.

Mr. Malcolm Bruce: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that those of us in Scotland who have had a year's more experience of the community charge or poll tax know that the problem does not get better; it gets substantially worse as the level of resentment increases and the local authorities' difficulties in providing services become more aggravated? Can he explain why the Conservative party is now locked into the panic that he is now trying to head off, but cannot address the fact that a local income tax meets all the positive objectives that the community charge was said to meet, as well as providing local authorities with a buoyant source of revenue, and meeting the criterion of fairness? The people of Ribble Valley voted for the candidate who advocated that.

Mr. Wilshire: I do not believe that the people of Ribble Valley voted in favour of a local income tax: they voted against the community charge. Although the hon. Gentleman's party has been fair and reasonable about saying what it would do—I respect that, because it is one way of going about things—he is also making another mistake by putting the cart before the horse. He is trying to redesign local government finance. He is attempting a quick fix, which is impossible, as I shall show later, and which is the wrong way round. The message from Ribble Valley is absolutely clear, and we must respond to it.

Mr. Barry Field: I wonder whether my hon. Friend saw the exit poll that showed that just 3 per cent. of those who voted Liberal Democrat wanted a local income tax. In my constituency, a local income tax would come out at between £800 and £900 per taxpayer, and would take at least three years to introduce.

Mr. Wilshire: I entirely accept what my hon. Friend says, but if I go down that track, the debate is in danger of getting locked into the very thing that I am arguing against —the attempt to go for a quick fix when seeking the best way of financing local government. That would be dangerous.
Immediately and on a temporary basis, we must respond to the twin objections about the community charge of "too high" and "unfair". The relief scheme that is being introduced will go a long way towards dealing with the "too high" objection. Many people in Britain will pay less in a few weeks' time than they pay now. That will make a tremendous difference. It does not matter that the charge is increasing notionally: they will pay less. If that is


not adequate to meet the demands of the British people, that temporary relief scheme will have to be improved even further. However, it must remain temporary.
As for unfairness, the starting point is to listen to council treasurers—the people who collect the money. They know only too well where the real unfairness and difficulties lie. They lie with the very young, students, the ill and the very old. Council treasurers up and down the land will tell us, if we listen, that it usually costs more to collect little bits of money than the amount collected. If we started by addressing that unfairness, we might save money rather than cost ourselves more.

Sir Timothy Raison: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Wilshire: No. Other people wish to make speeches.
If we do the two things that I mentioned on a temporary basis, we shall respond to Ribble Valley. Then we must refuse to be panicked and take our time to get our fundamental review absolutely right. Otherwise, we shall be back where we started. In order to get that fundamental review right, it must be carried out in the correct order.
There is no point in trying to answer the question, "What is the long-term way of financing local government?", until we can answer the question, "What will local government look like in future?" Long before we come to the permanent financial solution, we must decide what the boundaries will look like, whether there will be one or two tiers of local government, and what the structure will be. We must get that right first. Secondly, we must redesign the services. Until we know which services are to be provided where, how in heaven's name can anyone—even the Labour party—get the financial package right?
Thirdly, before we come to finance, we must sort out the changes that we intend to make in local democracy. When we have sorted out our boundaries, services and local democracy, we can ask, "What does local government look like and what is the best way to finance it?" When we come to that question, we must remember that simply how we raise local income is not the only matter of local government finance to be dealt with. We cannot say how we should raise local income in the long term until we have considered expenditure and the point made by the hon. Member for Oldham, Central and Royton (Mr. Lamond) about whether 60 per cent. or 45 per cent. of local government income should come from the centre, until we have decided how we intend to divide up the money according to the need for or lack of resources in local areas.
All that is part of the financial debate and all that has to come—[HON. MEMBERS: "How long?"] We shall take as long as is necessary. I do not believe that the British public are stupid. They will not be taken in by a party which puts up bits of paper without a single figure in them. After the experience of the community charge, they will not believe the Labour party when it simply says, "Here is a quick fix for finance." The public will not fall for that. They will accept honesty, provided that we first address the problems of the community charge on a temporary basis.
I accept what Opposition Members say about the messages from Ribble Valley——

Mr. John Home Robertson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Wilshire: No, I will not give way.
If we ignore the messages from Ribble Valley completely, we shall be heading for disaster. We must respond to them on a temporary basis, and then take as long as is necessary.
If Opposition Members really believe in local government as they claim, they will join us in seeking the long-term solution. If we redesign, get the boundaries, services and local democracy right, and if we improve grant arrangements, the result will be that raising money locally will become consequential. It will become less confrontational. If my colleagues and my party accept that we must keep calm and make a temporary change, the long-term solution will be the better for everyone. It will be respected by the British people, and at the end of it all we may even have a choice of what local system of fund raising we use.

Mr. Michael Carr: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for calling me so soon after my election but, given the circumstances, it is appropriate that I should make my maiden speech in this debate.
I am only the second Member of Parliament to represent Ribble Valley. The constituency came into existence in 1983 and, until his recent elevation to another place, had been represented by David Waddington.
David Waddington was a well-liked and respected Member of Parliamenta native of north-east Lancashire who, despite achieving high office, was first and foremost Ribble Valley's Member of Parliament. He was a gentleman. I recall that both the previous general election campaigns were robust and hard fought, but fought without rancour. I mention also his personal kindness, and I pay tribute to the service that he gave to the people of Ribble Valley.
The Ribble Valley constituency is an area of great contrasts. It straddles two local government districts. One is the whole of the Ribble Valley borough, the heart of which is the ancient market town of Clitheroe, looked over by its castle and set in some of the most beautiful countryside in England. The other part comprises some of the borough of Preston, including the whole of Fulwood, a large and expanding suburb at the western end of the constituency.
In many ways, Ribble Valley is like two constituencies rolled into one, and some of the concerns that people expressed during the by-election clearly reflect that. In the Preston area, more than 17,000 people are employed by British Aerospace, but in the next two years, more than 3,000 jobs will disappear. As a result, over £37 million will be taken out of the local economy. The human cost for those who will lose their jobs will be devastating and cannot, of course, be quantified in the same way.
In the long term, British Aerospace must diversify further in producing civilian aircraft, but in the short term, all must be done to firm up Saudi orders for the Tornado aircraft, the performance of which we have all witnessed recently, and to persuade the Germans to commit themselves to the production phase of the European fighter aircraft.
There are two other concerns that I would like to highlight before turning to the poll tax. During the by-election I met many farmers who were facing great difficulties, especially hill farmers. Not only are they facing


the consequences of high interest rates, like all other businesses, but they have experienced a sharp drop in incomes. Sheep farmers will suffer further losses as income from wool falls in the next 12 months. The importance of agriculture is still not taken seriously enough by the Government.
A second group who deserve special mention are the many young people growing up in Clitheroe, Longridge, and the villages of Ribble Valley, who wish to stay in the area, but cannot find affordable housing to buy or rent. Allowing young people to remain in their communities must become a far greater priority.
Turning to the subject of the debate, there are three additional reasons this week for stating that the poll tax is finished and must be abolished. First, the Audit Commission report today shows how unworkable it has become. The average poll tax collection rate for shire districts was 82 per cent. for metropolitan districts 73 per cent., for outer-London boroughs 77 per cent. and for inner-London boroughs, 66 per cent. The expectation at the start of the financial year was 90 per cent.
Today's list of charge-capped authorities is a sign of the second reason—the system was supposed to make capping redundant. Some of the councils, such as Lambeth are wilfully incompetent, others are on the list due to lack of fair funding. Either way, the list is a sign of failure. Above all, the electorate of Ribble Valley have spoken for the country as a whole. Their rejection of the poll tax was so overwhelming and so self-evident that it cannot be ignored.
To the Prime Minister, when he talks of dustbin votes, we say only, "Some rubbish, some dustbin." He should also remember that, when ignored, dustbins can fester. If anyone doubts the need to abolish the poll tax, let me remind them why it is so hated. During the by-election campaign, we received hundreds of letters from pensioners who have been clobbered by the poll tax. One case epitomises their plight, shows the difficulties that pensioners face and tells us loud and clear why the tax must go.
I canvassed a house where an old lady of 87 lived. She came to the door unable to walk properly and invited me in. During her life, she had done everything that the Government have encouraged people to do. She was self-reliant and thrifty, she had saved and bought her own house. She supported her family during the 1930s, when her father could not get a job and her brothers were too young to work. After the war, she bought a small house and continued to support her family. On the day she retired from work, her father died. He was not insured, because he did not have a job before the war. She continued to pay the mortgage out of the little that she had saved when she was at work.
Eight years ago, unable to keep the house because it was too much for her, she sold it for the princely sum of £20,000 and moved into sheltered accommodation. Due to her little nest egg of £20,000—which last year would have been worth £90,000 because of property inflation—she has to pay full rent, rates and poll tax. That example is not unique—it is typical—which is why the tax must go.
The Government must not forget that the electorate were given different options to replace the poll tax. Conservative Members who advocate a form of property

tax or a combination of property tax plus poll tax should remember that the electorate were offered a similar choice by the Labour party—although, to be fair, it proposed a property tax plus a local income tax.
The Ribble Valley by-election shows that there is no support for the return to the rates, however modified. Property taxes are unfair, would be costly, slow to implement, would require regular revaluations and would not enhance accountability. Many Conservatives will find that, if they abandon the poll tax for a property tax, they will be out of the fat and into the fire.
The Liberal Democrats proposed a local income tax. The detail and cost of our alternative featured strongly in the by-election. We campaigned vigorously on our proposals, as did the Conservatives, although we did not always recognise their interpretation.
I hope that, even at this late stage, the Department of the Environment will finally give serious consideration to a local income tax. The only objections to such a tax have been political, or based on misapprehension of how it works or what it would cost. A serious review in which "nothing is ruled in or out" should have given serious consideration to an alternative which was backed by the Layfield inquiry and many other interested parties.
The undeniable strength of a local income tax is that it is fair and can be seen to be fair, because it is related to ability to pay. The Secretary of State for the Environment will recognise that strength. In April 1988, he spoke in favour of the attempt of his colleague, the hon. Member for Hampshire, East (Mr. Mates) to make the community charge more directly related to ability to pay by banding it. He said:
I shall vote for him … I shall do so not from any sense of enthusiasm for the detail, but from an unswerving allegiance to the principles upon which it is based". —[Official Report, 18 April 1988, Vol. 131, c. 624.]
Those principles were fairness and ability to pay. They are what a local income tax is about. We believe—it is yet to be contradicted—that a local income tax could be introduced within one financial year, provided that the decision to proceed is taken six months before the start of that financial year.
The Inland Revenue would produce a formal statement setting out how much taxable income there was in each district, based upon a random selection of a fifth of taxpayers in that district. Using that information, the local authority would set a rate of local income tax that met the spending needs of its district. Each taxpayer would be told how much he would be expected to pay by the end of the year. However, a standard rate would be collected through the pay-as-you-earn system and allocated to the local authorities. At the end of the year, each taxpayer would receive a rebate or extra tax demand, depending on how their authority deviated from the standard rate, with the bill arriving just before the local elections.
That system is simple, easy to understand and much cheaper to administer, and everyone makes a contribution to local services that they can afford. Along with the introduction of fair votes, it is also the most accountable system. The cost to households will, as in any system, depend on the level of Government grant and an equalisation system between authorities, but we know from a parliamentary question answered last month that, on the Government's own figures, an average rate of 5·5 p would be needed next year.
Liberal Democrats are not afraid of saying that some people will pay more than they do with the community charge. In the by-election, a Conservative leaflet highlighted one family that would lose—their combined income was £46,000—but even that family would pay only £600 more than they do for their poll tax bill. If it were possible to ask that mythical family, I believe that they would appreciate why it is that they should contribute more than their poorer neighbours.
As a maiden speech should be uncontroversial, I shall leave the last word on the subject to the Minister for Housing and Planning. In the debate on the Local Government Finance Bill in April 1988, he said:
With a dismissive sweep of the arm, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said that any attempt to raise local revenue by a form of local income tax was inherently impossible—ignoring the fact that it is exactly how the vast majority of civilised countries fund local government and that not one civilised country funds local government in the way proposed by the Bill".—[Official Report, 18 April 1988; Vol. 131, c. 608.]
The people of Ribble Valley will hope that the Minister does not allow the current Secretary of State to be equally dismissive of their verdict.

Mr. Robert Adley: This is the first time in my almost 21 years in the House that I have had the honour and privilege of following a maiden speaker. May I be the first to congratulate the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Carr) on his victory, his fluency, his cogency and, particularly, his generosity to his predecessor Lord Waddington? Those of us who knew him know that the hon. Member for Ribble Valley spoke nothing less than the truth when he spoke of Lord Waddington's deep concern and affection for, and empathy with, his constituency.
I had the pleasure of visiting Ribble Valley during the by-election. I can confess in the privacy of the House, that it was not unconnected with the fact that my wife and I had previously visited a small hotel in Slaidburn, which we thoroughly enjoyed—[Interruption.] It was not a Holiday Inn.
I agree with the hon. Member for Ribble Valley that the northern part of his constituency contains some of the most beautiful and desolate countryside in England. I could say that I hope that he will soon have much more time to enjoy it, but that would be unkind. I hope that the hon. Gentleman enjoys his sojourn in this place. As he will have discovered, it is a privilege to be here and, notwithstanding the occasional arguments across the Floor of the Chamber, most of us spend much of our time in easy personal friendships with colleagues in all parts of the House. Perhaps I could take up that theme at this point in the debate. I am sorry that the Dagenham boy piper, the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould), and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State have left.
There was some noise from this side of the Chamber during the speech by the hon. Member for Dagenham, but I do not agree with the hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham) that it was the worst behaviour that he had ever seen or heard. To say that was extremely insulting to the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) and other hon. Members. because events during the passage of the European Communities Act 1972, the Housing Act 1988 and the Industrial Relations Act 1971, to name but three, made today's performance pale into insignificance.
From the beginning, I have consistently voted against the community charge, and nothing that I have heard today or in the past two or three years leads me to believe that I was wrong. My hon. Friends will not mind my saying that some of them who were making noises as if they were friends of the poll tax sounded like people who were friends of the dinosaur when that was going out of fashion.
We all know that the Government have made a mistake. They were elected in 1979 and re-elected in 1983 and 1987, and they should be allowed to make an occasional mistake. This has been a serious mistake, but the Government have had the courage to recognise it. The Labour party is entitled to its fun, but Opposition Members should occasionally remember that we all have a duty to try to put right the problems that have been created by the Government's attempts to improve the rating system. We must put it right by coming up with a better system of local government finance. That is all that we are trying to achieve. Some of my hon. Friends regard the community charge as a sort of totem, but it is not worth dying in the ditches for what is after all a system of local government taxation.
I hope that all hon. Members will agree that Government revenue is not raised for the benefit of the Government and that local government revenue is not raised for the benefit of local government. The beneficiaries of any form of taxation must be the electorate at large. That should be our guiding light. If we can all agree on that, surely to goodness we can find a solution which does not owe its parentage to party political dogma.

Mr. Rupert Allason: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Adley: No, because I have said that I shall be brief; I hope that my hon. Friend will forgive me.
The problems with the community charge or poll tax, as we are supposed to call it, are so well known that they do not need to be repeated. I seek agreement, not disagreement, and invite hon. Members to agree with the following propositions. We should keep to a minimum 1 he cost of raising and collecting any tax, because the more we spend on raising and collection the less there is to spend. Do we agree that most people accept that income tax is a fair tax? We rarely hear people complaining that the principle of income tax is unfair.
Perhaps the system advocated by the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Carr) for a local income tax would be just as fair and no more expensive to collect than national income tax. His timetabling was slightly optimistic, but I agree with him, because he agrees with' my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment that nothing is ruled in and nothing is ruled out. I plead with the Labour party to recognise that, in the end, there are no bonus points in this for anyone. We must all try to devise a system with which hon. Members and our people can live. The Opposition have had their fun, and are entitled to enjoy themselves.

Mr. David Blunkett: It was not funny.

Mr. Adley: The hon. Member says that it was not funny. When he reads the start of the speech by his hon.
Friend the Member for Dagenham, he will find that it contains a certain amount of fun. I do not complain about that, but I am trying to look forward and not backwards.
I seek agreement across the party divide on another proposition. I shall say it slowly, because it may be contentious. Accountability is not related to who collects the tax, but to how it is spent. If we can agree on that and on the other propositions that I have advanced, we shall begin to get somewhere.
My final proposition pushes at the margins of agreement. As we all know, hypothecation of taxation is an unacceptable principle. We do not believe, for example, that a Government who earn money from gambling taxes should spend it on building more casinos. As we believe that hypothecation of taxation is unacceptable, why must we live with the assumption that there must be a permanent and unchangeable relationship between what we call local tax and the provision of local services?
Are we not trying to find a way to raise money as painlessly and as fairly as possible, and as cheaply as possible, to spend on the provision of services that should be administered by locally elected people? If we can agree on just some of the propositions that I have advanced, we may make progress towards working together without preconditions to finding a new form of local government taxation.
My hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities, who is on the Front Bench, and I have had many disagreements about the community charge, and I do not propose to seek an argument with him now. Will he think about how much money we have had to spend on rebates and collection, and then consider non-collection and the cost of new local authority buildings in which to house new staff to collect the community charge? If that total could be spent, not on the administration of a tax but on the provision of services, all our constituents would be a great deal better off.
I shall finish as I started. The Opposition have made their point, and I plead with them to accept the offer made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. The Opposition are putting a precondition on discussions, because they want us to announce the abolition of the community charge and accept their system. That is not what the people of this country expect. The offer is still open, and the Opposition should recognise that all we seek is a fair and honest form of local government taxation.

Mr. Tom Clarke: I also congratulate the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Carr) on his maiden speech. It was eloquent and sincere, and we wish him well during his time in the House.
I should have liked to expand on the theme of a local income tax, but time would not permit that. When I was in local government I had the opportunity to give evidence to the Layfield committee. Its report is still well worth reading, but it does not give much support to the idea of the introduction of a local income tax in the short time that some hon. Members suppose.
I should like to speak about the situation in Scotland. I regret the absence from the Chamber of the Secretary of State for Scotland, or, indeed, of any Scottish Minister,

especially in the light of what has been said in today's press about how the review will affect Scotland. I do not think that I am overstating the matter when I say that Scotland is enraged about the representations about the review made by our Secretary of State.
It would appear from what we read in the press that the Secretary of State for Scotland, far from campaigning in the interests of Scotland to get rid of the hated poll tax, is doing his best to retain it. Our Secretary of State is not the sort of man who normally leads campaigns, so we in Scotland are astounded that he is campaigning to retain the most unfair, inequitable, unjust and unpopular measure that we have seen for many a year—the poll tax.

Mr. Home Robertson: I am a scarred veteran of the Standing Committee that considered the Abolition of Domestic Rates Etc. (Scotland) Bill in 1987. Does my hon. Friend accept that it is rather bizarre that the Government intend to repeal the poll tax on the strength of one by-election loss when the Tory party lost half its seats in Scotland in the last general election? The Secretary of State for Scotland appears to be prepared to sacrifice the other half of those seats to keep the tax going.

Mr. Clarke: As always, my hon. Friend makes an excellent and well-informed point.
We are told in The Guardian today:
Minister fights to save poll tax".
When I saw that, I thought that it might be some obscure Minister whose constituency was the unusual one that would benefit. The article continues:
'Dithering' Major put on the spot by Scottish Secretary's intervention.
Incredulously, I read this:
Mr. Lang has made no secret that he has been fighting in the Government's poll tax review group to keep the community charge in some form".
Nobody in Scotland would regard that as fighting a campaign for a measure that is widely supported by the Scottish people. The truth is that in every test of opinion —local elections, by-elections, opinion polls and the rest —the people of Scotland, including some who benefit from the poll tax, regard it as being utterly repugnant and would expect the Secretary of State for Scotland to reflect their views. How could they feel otherwise? Now that we have seen the poll tax in operation, we realise that it is a tax that is unwanted and unpopular.
We are seeing in Scotland—and we saw it a year earlier than the rest of the country—a tax that has caused divisions, including divisions within families, and that has led to an average increase in Scotland in the past year of 29 per cent., irrespective of the political colour of the councils. Non-payment is a staggering 14 per cent., and if the Chancellor is looking for ideas for his Budget next week, the introduction of a new tax with such a high level of non-response would not be one to recommend.
There has been a 50 per cent. change in the register in local areas. In Scotland we are seeing clear and undeniable evidence of hardship and poverty as a result of the poll tax. We have seen an amazing 1·25 million warrants served, more than 700,000 cases brought before the sheriff officers, 30,000 poinding visits, 8,000 wage arrestments, 10,000 bank arrestments and even 70,000 income support deductions. The latter figure shows clearly that it is not a question of ability to pay, as some of the poorest are being treated in that way.
My hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, Central and Royton (Mr. Lamont), in an excellent speech that reflected


his local government background, rightly outlined some of the administrative problems in local government. It is not simply a case of inability to collect a tax, important though that is. We are seeing an administrative nightmare. It is costly, and what it yields is not being applied to the services that local authorities of all political complexions want to provide.
I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House could tell us of appalling surgery cases. A few weeks ago, in my constituency, in a surgery in Waterside, a man showed me a letter telling him that he would be fined £50 for not having arranged to pay his parents' poll tax. They had both died more than four years previously. Equally, there are serious implications for the provision of services. The poll tax is inefficient everywhere. If the Government have to cap poll taxes to an extent that they did not anticipate when they introduced the idea, then education, social work and other services will not be provided to the standard that local communities rightly desire.
Much of this is happening to disguise one of the most important issues of the past decade. It is the simple fact that, subtly, the Government have quite deliberately restricted the funding and resources from central Government available to local government. In Scotland, we have seen a 12 per cent. reduction in real terms compared with 10 years ago. In the face of that overwhelming evidence, why is the Secretary of State for Scotland apparently taking the view that he is reported as having taken in the discussions on the poll tax? He may have been influenced by the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth).

Mr. Home Robertson: What about the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart)?

Mr. Clarke: I shall come to him in a minute.
Nobody would disagree about the hon. Member for Stirling who, it might be said, is a person of principle. In the next few weeks, we shall see whether that person of principle will accept a policy based on property valuations, and perhaps more. Last year, he was taking a leading role in an advertising campaign, featuring vultures and other such creatures, aimed against such policies. His principles will be tested if he goes along with what appears to be the policy that the review body has adopted.
It would be unkind not to remember the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart). Eastwood has many qualities, and one would not take away from them, but it is not entirely representative of all of Scotland. The hon. Gentleman would be mistaken if he thought that even those who benefit from unfair policies and taxes were prepared to vote for them. That message will apply to Eastwood as well.
The Government, the Secretary of State and seemingly other Ministers in the Scottish Office are haunted by failure. They are obsessed with the need to defend the mistakes of the past. The Scottish people expect honesty. Tory Members of Parliament representing Scottish constituencies should know a great deal about lost causes, as there are so few of them. However, they should not be influenced in this important matter by false pride and a failure to admit that they were wrong.
In the 1930s, Winston Churchill said of the Tory party:
They were resolved to be irresolute.
The people of Scotland are not prepared to wait until the Government think they have got it right. There are so many injustices that the patience of the British public,

including the people of Scotland, should not be overestimated. The people of Scotland want once again local government services that reflect local needs.
We are appalled that, for example, in community care the needs of the elderly are affected. Organisations like Crossroads, which have done so much to help carers, have suffered in some regions through lack of money because of poll tax capping. Given the unemployment rate in Scotland, we are appalled that training in several regions is being cut because local authorities cannot meet vital training needs. We are appalled that elderly people will lose, for example, the services of home helps, which any civilised society would want to make available for them.
All the evidence of the past few years shows that people are appalled by the poll tax itself. It is unworthy of the House. people expect decency and fairness in taxation policy, especially as it applies to local services. They are not getting that under the poll tax. If the Secretary of State for Scotland does not recognise that, it is time he went, and took the poll tax with him.

Mr. Kenneth Hind: It is clear from what we have heard in the debate from my hon. Friends and from Opposition Members that there is no quick fix for the difficult and intransigent problem of the community charge. Hon. Members who visited Ribble Valley during the by-election campaign will realise that the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Carr) sits among us today, on the Liberal Bench, for one reason and one reason only—the community charge. Lancashire spoke with one voice, a voice that I warned my hon. Friends they were likely to hear because of the deep unpopularity of the tax in the north of England.
The people of Ribble Valley basically told the Conservative party that it has to do something about the tax, which needs fundamental change and which has to be seen to be more fair. That lesson was driven home firmly and strongly. It is interesting to note from the exit poll that, if it had been a general election, 44 per cent. would have voted Conservative, 31 per cent. would have voted Liberal Democrat and 16 per cent. would have voted Labour.
Two questions were being asked on the street. The first was: what would Labour charge under its proposals? I listened to the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) with disbelief and anger, which are shared by my hon. Friends. Having said that seven out of 10 households in Britain would benefit, the hon. Gentleman told us that he has not got any figures and cannot say what the average household, living in a semi-detached house in his constituency, would pay. We are being deceived. For the hon. Gentleman to make such a statement, he must have worked out how much would be spent on local government through central Government, how much would be raised from local taxpayers, and how much Labour expected each authority to spend. If that information is available, the House and the public have a right to have sight of it so that they can evaluate it.
The second question was: what changes would the Government make to the community charge? It will take time. The hon. Member for Dagenham wants a quick fix from the Government in three months, yet it took ages for the Labour party to come up with proposals. I could count probably 10 alternatives and various policy documents


before it brought forward proposals. Therefore, it is dishonest of the Labour party to expect the Conservative party to find something speedily.
There can be no substitute for the abolition of the single charge poll tax or community charge as it stands. I support its abolition. I am not ashamed to say that I voted in favour of it. At the beginning, I voted in favour of a charge of £175 per head, but I have seen the charge escalate until it is far too high for vast numbers of people. It has resulted in the erosion of the standard of living of people on low incomes.
The community charge has been destroyed by high-spending Labour councils which have used its introduction to screen vast increases in expenditure far and above the increase in inflation. They have used big increases as an excuse to help to destroy the tax. At every turn, they have worked against it to prevent it from succeeding.
Of most importance has been the effect of the tax on the public. I am not prepared to listen in my advice surgery to sad stories from constituents, some in tears, pensioners with small occupational pensions, people with young families and young people just starting work, whose standard of living and livelihood are being undermined by the tax. We must do something to help those people.

Mr. Den Dover: My hon. Friend has mentioned how unfair and high the charge is. Can he confirm that it is most unfair in Lancashire, which we both represent, for a local authority to keep within the guidelines and then see the county bring in a huge increase of £80 per person per year?

Mr. Hind: I fully endorse what my hon. Friend has said.
I will support the Government this evening, because I recognise that many elements are covered in the review. The first lesson is that it is not just an examination of the structure of local government finance. The Government must examine the whole of local government and decide on its structure. If there is to be more than one tier, they must decide which services will be provided for the public by each tier. That will take time. Royal commissions and previous inquiries which made recommendations about local government reorganisation all took time. Allied to the review of local government structure is a need to examine local government taxation.
The Opposition have talked about interim measures. The clearest interim measure that has been introduced is the community charge reduction scheme. In my constituency, 30,000 of 40,000 households will benefit from the scheme. Every household which paid rates of £600 in 1989–90 will benefit. They include pensioners, single people, people on low incomes and single-parent families—the very people my hon. Friends want to do all they can to assist.
My right hon. and hon. Friends who are reviewing the community charge must consider the structure of local government and decide how much central Government should put in. We have heard justified criticism that the amount put into local government by central Government has been reduced since 1979. By giving benefit to community charge payers through transitional relief and the community charge reduction scheme, the Government are giving money back to local government.
The starting point is how much central Government will give to subsidise local government, and how they will raise it. Will it be raised by indirect taxation, by direct taxation or by taking a service such as education out of local government and putting it under central Government? I do not necessarily support a change in the funding of education, but such measures have to be examined carefully.
Those factors have to be taken into account before the Government consider capital value rates, a local income tax or a property tax plus income tax. From what I heard on the doorsteps, I remind the hon. Member for Ribble Valley that the people there did not vote for an increase in income tax of 8p in the pound to get rid of the community charge. They voted against the community charge, and they voted against the Government that brought it in; they did not vote for the Liberal Democrats or for their proposals. Do not let anyone go away from here thinking that they did.
I ask my right hon. Friends to ensure that their new tax, whatever it is, is based on three overwhelmingly important principles. It must be easy to collect; it is monstrous that we are asking people to pay this year for last year's non-payers. It must be seen to be fair. It must reflect the ability of the payer to meet the bill; ability to pay is paramount. The public will support any proposals that meet those criteria. With all due respect to the hon. Member for Ribble Valley, I am sure that, if my right hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) gets his proposal right, we shall be sitting on the Government Benches after the next general election.

Mr. David Blunkett: I should like to add my congratulations to the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Carr) on his maiden speech. It is never an easy task, and it was delivered on a day when we are debating a subject which has aroused a good deal of heat and which, since the beginning of the afternoon, has also begun to reveal a little light as well. Not one hon. Member has yet spoken in favour of either the principle or the practice of the poll tax.

Mr. David Shaw: A number of us were not called.

Mr. Blunkett: An hon. Member on the Conservative Benches has said that he was not called. It is a great shame, because we on the Opposition Benches want to hear what Government Members want to say in defence of the poll tax. We are pleased to hear that these hon. Members want to make their voices well and truly heard, because I must tell the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Adley) that appeals to us to abandon the poll tax as a key domestic political issue for the general election are a little rich.
This shambles is not of our making. This fiasco did not emerge from the Labour party. It was invented and implemented by hon. Members on the Government Benches. They voted it through—I accept that the hon. Member for Christchurch did his best to vote for amendments and alternatives that were rejected out of hand. Those opportunities were given and were not taken, so we are in our present position entirely because the Conservative leadership continued, against all advice and


all the evidence placed before them year after year—not over the past few months—to argue in favour of the poll tax.
Conservative leaders said that it was fair, that it would work, that it would bring accountability. They said that it would change the way in which local government operated. I expect that not one of the hon. Members on the Government Front Bench tonight will have the temerity to defend the tax. What we have seen over the past few weeks is a display and an acknowledgement of incompetence and indecision. What a set of clowns we have in the Government—a face for every day, a different answer for every journalist and a different head to stand on every time we kick the feet from under them.
Everything that happens is a shambles. Resignations are in the offing, although so far we know only about Parliamentary Private Secretaries of whom no one has ever heard; but no doubt change will come. Hippocratic oaths have been swallowed by the bucketful. Ministers who have defended the poll tax find themselves in untenable positions. Ministers who have talked about abolishing the rates have talked about doing away with the
terrible unfairness that afflicted us".
Also:
Rates were about as fair and rational as Russian roulette.
We have even heard the classic statement:
the level of rates bore no relation to council spending".
The poll tax, of course, bears no relation either. The coup de grace was:
A return to the rates plus revaluation!
It is a cynical about-turn which would leave anybody speechless. I hope that the Minister of State, who made those statements in a press release on 11 October last year, will stand up tonight to break his Trappist vows and agree that what he said is no longer tenable; he will therefore have to admit that there is a decision that some remaining poll tax will be seen alongside a new property tax, or else the position that he finds himself in, given his honourable and ideological defence of the poll tax, will lead him to resign. He has no alternative. Every statement that he has made has ridiculed the rates and a property tax. He is an honourable man and believes in what he is saying; I think that he will find that his position has become untenable.
So let us be clear: nobody who has spoken—I agree that there are others on the Government Benches who have not been called—has spoken in favour of the poll tax or of retaining any part of it, but Ministers are in a difficulty of their own making, because the simple answer to their dilemma is to accept our alternative.
There is only a certain number of options. We know that because, without the benefit of the civil service and its computer facilities, we went through them night., after night, weekend after weekend. My hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) and I trawled through them, sometimes without even the benefit of a calculator to help us do the job, but in the simple knowledge that, if 28 million people had lost under the poll tax, it did not take a genius to see that 70 per cent. of families would gain by going back to a rating system, especially one which was made fairer, and especially with all the money poured into it that has been poured into the present system by the Government.
We know that, under our system, the abolition of the poll tax will begin immediately to bring relief. We must ask

what sort of changes we need to make it fair, progressive and acceptable. We must therefore ask questions about the nature of the property tax that is to be introduced.
What sort of valuation system will we have? Is it to be a floor tax, where occupants of large terraced houses pay more than those of a small penthouse suite, where those living in penury pay more than Lady Porter or some hon. Members on the Government Benches? What an absurdity. In any case, people would start building false walls in their houses to reduce the space. Or we might have a different system, under which people went round the outside of the house with a tape measure. What about a bedroom tax, with people getting a do-it-yourself kit to knock down dividing walls?

Mr. Adley: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) for one or two kind things that he said about my speech. He is having a bit of fun, like his hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham, knocking down propositions that have not been put up, except in certain organs of the press. Does he not agree with me that what the country wants is a bit of co-operation across the party divide on this?
If my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has, as he has done yet again today, invited the Labour party to participate, will not the time shortly arrive when the Labour party will reckon that it has quite properly rubbed the noses in the dirt of those who can see nothing but glory from the community charge, and that we should now work together to try to find a solution to this problem? Will he please soon drop his preconditions for working, all of us, together as Members?

Mr. Blunkett: We have only one precondition—that the Government say that they will abolish the poll tax and settle for the only alternative, the only one that can remove the poll tax in the next three years. My hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham spelled it out clearly this afternoon. There are no alternatives to what we propose which would not mean the poll tax remaining for a substantial period, with impossible problems of tax collection and mounting debt.
Already today, the Audit Commission has told us something scandalous—that 7·5 million people have had summonses laid against them for non-payment in the past 12 months. Those 7·5 million people have been made to feel, and to be, criminals because of this tax. That is a scandal for any Government.
There is no easy way out. By all means let the Government apologise to the British people and ask their forgiveness for the money which has been spent on their behalf in trying to make the tax work. But they should not ask the Opposition somehow to hold out a hand and say: "We forgive you. We will abandon our general election pledges in order to make sure that you win at the polls." What nonsense. What a farce.
That all started when the Secretary of State made his great announcement. He stood at the Dispatch Box and asked the Opposition to capitulate and allow the Government to be forgiven by the British electorate for all the pain, misery, cuts in services and deprivations that the Government have inflicted on them as a result of adopting the principle of a flat rate tax.

Mr. Ian Taylor: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Blunkett: No, I shall not give way. I want to continue my speech by dealing with the form of valuation.
Only a few valuation proposals are workable. Capital values are workable, but they were ridiculed by Conservative Members, who described them as a roof tax. They said—wrongly, in most cases—that capital values would crucify people in the south of England. They said that their own voters in the marginal seats of the south-east would be irrevocably damaged by capital values. We have it in writing from Conservative Members right across the spectrum.
We are left with one other option—graduated rateable values. That happens to be close to my heart, because I played a significant part in suggesting it. It is not clever; it is just common sense. A number of key valuation factors are put together, and if the professional valuers agree that they can be weighted correctly and say that it will work, common sense says, adopt that option. The only reason the Government will not adopt it is because the Opposition already have. It is as simple as that. Anything that the Government cobble together will be a dog's dinner.

Mr. Bowis: One point that the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) made clear in his interview in the New Statesman and Society, although he was described as saying it "unguardedly", was that the Labour party's policy
will pauperise millions of people.
Can the hon. Gentleman tell us today who those millions are who will be pauperised, so that we can pass on the glad tidings to them?

Mr. Blunkett: We agree with the right hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley), who has had a sudden about-turn on the workability of the poll tax; suggesting that an extension of rebates and the ability to pay a property tax makes some sense. He has adopted it as a philosophy for making the poll tax work. Having rejected banding and progressivity, he now believes in it; and we believe in it in terms of a sensible and workable property tax.
But there is one other solution which the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis) has advocated—total transfer. The Secretary of State for Wales calls it a pool tax. Conservative Members are welcome to dive into it if they wish. A variation on it which has been mooted is to transfer teachers' pay, further education, police and the fire service. The cost of that would be £6·5 billion.
I do not know whether the £5 billion for which the Secretary of State is asking is part of that, but where will that £6·5 billion come from? Where has the £8 billion to £10 billion come from which has already been spent on introducing, setting up and operating the poll tax, dealing with non-collection and extending the community charge reduction scheme? That money is not available for services to protect the elderly, children in school or those in need, or to extend the rebate system to make it fair and equitable and based on ability to pay. That money has been spent on a system adopted to keep the Government in office. That is what has happened during the past two or three years.
It is clear, and the British people will recognise, that the amount that has been spent is a scandal. The Government have squandered our money in an act of gross negligence and culpable, indictable incompetence. If the voters were shareholders, they would have sacked the board long ago. If the voters were the Audit Commission, they would have

surcharged and disqualified the Cabinet long ago. When the voters are voters, they will eject those who squandered their money and inflicted the pain and misery of the poll tax on them, and they will swiftly vote in a Labour Government who will abolish the poll tax.

The Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities (Mr. Michael Portillo): I congratulate the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Carr) on his maiden speech. I echo the tribute paid to him by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Adley), particularly for paying such a generous tribute to his predecessor. He took us on a tour of his constituency, but I am bound to say that for many of us it was superfluous because so many of us have visited his constituency in recent times.
As the hon. Gentleman spoke, I was reminded that his constituency has two districts, both of which struggle with Labour-controlled Lancashire, a vastly overspending county. The difference is that Ribble Valley, a Conservative-controlled authority, still manages to set a community charge which is £41 less than that set by Preston, a Labour-controlled authority.
The hon. Gentleman explained why it was urgent for him to make his maiden speech so early. I entirely accept his explanation, or one might have thought that he was trying to get his speech in fast for fear that he would not be here for long. All I will say to him is that, with all my heart, I wish him a very late general election.
I begin by talking about the timetable which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has set out. My right hon. Friend has said consistently from the beginning of the review of local government finance, structure and functions that we want to narrow the options by about the beginning of April. There has been no change in that. That has consistently been the Government's position. However, what might not have been expected is that, during our review, we have already taken the important decision to introduce the community charge reduction scheme.
I can genuinely say—I have the figures to prove it—that the community charge reduction scheme benefits seven out of 10 households in many constituencies. I suspect that, in Ribble Valley, close on seven out of 10 households benefit. I have the figures to prove that, and I am not afraid to produce them. My figure of seven out of 10 benefiting is a genuine figure, whereas the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) could in no way back up his sham figure of seven out of 10 benefiting from his plan.
The community charge reduction scheme will give hundreds of pounds off to people who live in low rateable value properties, and those properties are to be found in every constituency. Next year, what they will be paying in community charge will be approximately their old rates bill plus £104 for a couple, plus the difference between this year's and next year's community charge. As my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) said so eloquently and correctly, many families will be paying very much less in their community charge in the coming year than they are paying this year.

Sir Timothy Raison: The reduction scheme has been of enormous value, but as it will be some time before we have a major new reform, will my hon. Friend acknowledge that one group of people still suffering considerable hardship are those who did not pay rates? They are mainly young,


they are now paying the community charge, and they get no relief. There is real hardship, particularly when one or other member of the family is not working.

Mr. Portillo: It has been a matter of priorities, and we thought that the most important thing was to bring relief to those people who might be retired, whose rates bills were low and whose community charge bills turned out to be higher, particularly those who live in Labour-controlled authorities where the community charges have been set at such a high level.
My hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne wanted to know whether we were considering structure and functions as well as finance. I can reassure him on that point. We are considering all three matters.
Early in the debate, the Labour party was graced with a speech by the hon. Member for Oldham, Central and Royton (Mr. Lamond), who said that, in the past, many people did not disagree with the rates. The hon. Gentleman is entitled to that view, but I should point out that his hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) has said that Labour agrees that the rates system was flawed, and that his right hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock) described rates as the most unjust of all taxes. If the hon. Gentleman has a different opinion, he is in disagreement with his own party.
I was pretty impatient when the hon. Member for Dagenham talked about the suffering of people who are unable to pay the community charge. Like me, the hon. Gentleman knows that in many places the reason for the inability to pay is precisely that Labour authorities have been so profligate and have set such high community charges.
I shall give some examples. Last May, there was a change in control in a number of places. In Ealing, where the Conservatives gained control, the community charge was reduced by 9 per cent.; in Southend, where the Conservatives gained control, the community charge was cut by 17 per cent. In Bradford, where Labour gained control, the community charge went up by 32 per cent.; in Kirklees, where Labour took control, the community charge went up by 31 per cent.; in Merton, where Labour took control, the community charge went up by a staggering 47 per cent. People have had their just reward for voting for the Labour party.

Mr. Gould: The Minister put Ealing at the top of his list. He above all others will know that Ealing has had the benefit of a gift of £5 million from his Department and has put up rents by no less than £28 a week. Does he stand by that sort of performance?

Mr. Portillo: The performance to which the hon. Gentleman alludes is the performance of the Labour administration from which we have just taken over, and the people of Ealing know that perfectly well.
Let me repeat a point that I have made again and again. Whatever the system of local government finance, the situation will always be the same. The Conservatives will always offer good, efficient local government and will be able to set lower community charges—indeed, lower taxes of any sort. By contrast, the Labour party will always drive up the community charge, as, previously, it drove up the rates, pauperising people.

Mr. Patrick Thompson: In my constituency, the Tory-controlled Broadland district

council held its community charge this year, whereas Labour-controlled Norwich city council allowed its charge to rise to such an extent that it has been announced today that the authority will be capped. Does not that show that it is Labour-controlled councils that impose high community charges?

Mr. Portillo: When I was in Norwich on Monday evening, I heard precisely that story about the contrast between Labour and Conservative authorities. It is a contrast that would exist whatever the system of local government finance was in force.
There is another way in which Labour has pushed up the community charge.

Mr. John Maxton: rose——

Mr. Portillo: As the hon. Gentleman has not been present, I shall not give way to him.
The Labour party has pushed up the community charge through non-payment. We have often drawn attention to the 28 or 30 Labour Members who have signed early-clay motions in favour of non-payment. Today, I can add the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Doran), who told a meeting of civil servants:
A number of my colleagues have refused to pay, and I support them in every way.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) said:
I want the Labour party to lead a non-payment campaign.
Most tellingly of all, a Labour party newspaper carried an advertisement headed, "Don't register; don't pay". Thus, apparently, the Labour party officially supports nonpayment of the community charge.

Mr. Dave Nellist: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Portillo: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman, who, I believe, supports non-payment.

Mr. Nellist: As the Minister is so keen on facts and figures, would he like to comment on a reply that was given to the hon. Member for Stockport (Mr. Favell) on 26 February?
The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment—the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key)—referring to the average poll tax in England for 1990–91, said, as reported in column 421, "It was £357." When asked what the average poll tax would be were the Government this year to give the same amount, in real terms, in support of local councils as was given in 1979, the Under-Secretary said that it would be £152. Is it not a fact that the biggest non-payers are the Government, who are failing to pay £205 for every person in this country? That is why services are so poor and poll tax figures so high.

Mr. Portillo: Almost the biggest non-payer in the country that I can think of is the hon. Gentleman himself. He has asked his constituents who are not as well off as he is to pay what he is not paying. Even at today's level of Government support for local authorities, there are Conservative authorities that are able to set community charges below the amount that the hon. Gentleman has just mentioned. In Wandsworth, the figure is £136. It happens to be that community charge that the hon. Gentleman does not want to pay. In my opinion, that


disqualifies him not only from voting in this debate but even from speaking in it. The participants in this debate ought to be willing to bear their civic responsibility.
Yesterday, I was flattered by the hon. Member for Brightside, who wasted valuable air time to call for my resignation. I felt that it represented a certain political coming of age that the Labour party should think it worth while to do so. The crime of which I stand accused is defence of Government policy. So far as the Labour party is concerned, defence of one's policy is a crime indeed. The Labour party is never willing to defend its own policies. It has made 65 changes of policy. It has had a different policy every three weeks. Even the policy that it has now lit upon is one that it is not prepared to defend.
The Leader of the Opposition, when he spoke recently at his party's local government conference, was unwilling to defend that policy, unwilling to explain it. He devoted only half a sentence in his entire speech to a reference to his party's policy. There has been no defence of that policy today, nor has there been any explanation of how much it would cost. We did not hear from the hon. Member for Dagenham what his party's system would mean for his constituents, or from the hon. Member for Brightside what it would mean for his constituents. No examples have been given.
Have the costings been done or not? During the debate, the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Randall), from a sedentary position, called out that the costings had been done. If they have been done, let the hon. Gentleman give them to us. It is no wonder that the Labour party has been entirely unwilling to join in the review. It does not want to have its policies analysed. It does not want to have its figures—which do not yet exist —scrutinised. It does not want to be exposed for the sham that it has produced.

Mr. Maxton: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Portillo: There is no point of order, and the hon. Gentleman knows it.

Mr. Maxton: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Portillo: It will be bogus.

Mr. Maxton: The Minister has not yet addressed the point that is made in the motion. The motion is, of course, about abolition of the poll tax; it is not about Labour party policy. Can the Minister, in the last two minutes, tell us whether the Government are in favour of abolishing the poll tax and introducing a property tax?

Mr. Portillo: Clearly my prediction was right: the hon. Gentleman's point of order was entirely bogus.
The Leader of the Opposition wrote a preposterous letter to the Prime Minister. The right hon. Gentleman must realise that there is no basis on which discussions could take place, as the Opposition are unwilling to produce their figures. The Opposition have contrived to produce a policy so obscure that one could not possibly know what one would pay. That is an entirely cynical approach.
The hon. Member for Brightside admitted that his party's valuations will be based on capital values, rental values, building costs and repair costs. That means that

21·5 million properties in this country will have to be valued four times over. There will have to be 86 million valuations.
The Labour party has failed us today. It has proposed the abolition of the community charge, but it has no clearly worked out alternative. It refuses to discuss what its policy will be. During a general election, it will not be enough to wave a blank sheet of paper at the electorate. Some answers will be needed, and the cynicism of Labour's position will be exposed.
The Government will produce their conclusions very soon. The review is on schedule. The first result, the community charge reduction scheme, is already in place, and that will produce benefits totalling hundreds of pounds for millions of people. With the review on schedule, and with this early result from it, I ask my hon. Friends to join me in supporting the amendment.

Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—

The House divided: Ayes 189, Noes 331.

Division No. 94]
[7 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley, N.)
Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Fisher, Mark


Armstrong, Hilary
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Foster, Derek


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Foulkes, George


Barron, Kevin
Fraser, John


Beckett, Margaret
Fyfe, Maria


Bell, Stuart
Galbraith, Sam


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Galloway, George


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Garrett, John (Norwich South)


Benton, Joseph
Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)


Bermingham, Gerald
George, Bruce


Blair, Tony
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Blunkett, David
Golding, Mrs Llin


Boateng, Paul
Gordon, Mildred


Boyes, Roland
Gould, Bryan


Bradley, Keith
Graham, Thomas


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)
Grocott, Bruce


Caborn, Richard
Hardy, Peter


Callaghan, Jim
Harman, Ms Harriet


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Haynes, Frank


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Heal, Mrs Sylvia


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Healey, Rt Hon Denis


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Henderson, Doug


Clelland, David
Hinchliffe, David


Cohen, Harry
Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Corbett, Robin
Home Robertson, John


Corbyn, Jeremy
Hood, Jimmy


Cousins, Jim
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Cox, Tom
Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)


Crowther, Stan
Hoyle, Doug


Cryer, Bob
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Cummings, John
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
lllsley, Eric


Cunningham, Dr John
Ingram, Adam


Dalyell, Tam
Janner, Greville


Darling, Alistair
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Kilfedder, James


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'I)
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil


Dewar, Donald
Lamond, James


Dixon, Don
Leadbitter, Ted


Dobson, Frank
Leighton, Ron


Doran, Frank
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Duffy, A. E. P.
Lewis, Terry


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Livingstone, Ken


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)
Lofthouse, Geoffrey






Loyden, Eddie
Richardson, Jo


McAllion, John
Robertson, George


McAvoy, Thomas
Robinson, Geoffrey


McCartney, Ian
Rogers, Allan


McFall, John
Rooker, Jeff


McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)
Rooney, Terence


McKelvey, William
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


McLeish, Henry
Rowlands, Ted


McMaster, Gordon
Ruddock, Joan


McNamara, Kevin
Sedgemore, Brian


McWilliam, John
Sheerman, Barry


Madden, Max
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Short, Clare


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Skinner, Dennis


Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Martlew, Eric
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Maxton, John
Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)


Meacher, Michael
Snape, Peter


Meale, Alan
Soley, Clive


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Spearing, Nigel


Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)
Steinberg, Gerry


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Stott, Roger


Morgan, Rhodri
Strang, Gavin


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Straw, Jack


Mowlam, Marjorie
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Mullin, Chris
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Murphy, Paul
Turner, Dennis


Nellist, Dave
Vaz, Keith


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Walley, Joan


O'Brien, William
Warden, Gareth (Gower)


O'Hara, Edward
Wareing, Robert N.


O'Neill, Martin
Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Parry, Robert
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Patchett, Terry
Wilson, Brian


Pendry, Tom
Winnick, David


Pike, Peter L.
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Worthington, Tony


Prescott, John
Wray, Jimmy


Primarolo, Dawn
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Quin, Ms Joyce



Radice, Giles
Tellers for the Ayes:


Randall, Stuart
Mr. Ken Eastham and


Redmond, Martin
Mr. Martyn Jones.


Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn





NOES


Adley, Robert
Bottomley, Peter


Aitken, Jonathan
Bottomley, Mrs Virginia


Alexander, Richard
Bowden, A. (Brighton K'pto'n)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)


Allason, Rupert
Bowis, John


Alton, David
Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard


Amess, David
Brandon-Bravo, Martin


Amos, Alan
Brazier, Julian


Arbuthnot, James
Bright, Graham


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Brooke, Rt Hon Peter


Arnold, Sir Thomas
Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)


Ashby, David
Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)


Atkins, Robert
Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick


Atkinson, David
Buck, Sir Antony


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Budgen, Nicholas


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Burns, Simon


Baldry, Tony
Burt, Alistair


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Butler, Chris


Batiste, Spencer
Butterfill, John


Beith, A. J.
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)


Bellingham, Henry
Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)


Bendall, Vivian
Carlisle, John, (Luton N)


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Benyon, W.
Carr, Michael


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Carrington, Matthew


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Carttiss, Michael


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Cartwright, John


Body, Sir Richard
Cash, William


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Channon, Rt Hon Paul


Boswell, Tim
Chapman, Sydney





Chope, Christopher
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Churchill, Mr
Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)


Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Plymouth)
Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Clark, Rt Hon Sir William
Hill, James


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Hind, Kenneth


Colvin, Michael
Holt, Richard


Conway, Derek
Hordern, Sir Peter


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Howells, Geraint


Cope, Rt Hon John
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Couchman, James
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Cran, James
Hunt, Rt Hon David


Critchley, Julian
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Hunter, Andrew


Curry, David
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Irvine, Michael


Day, Stephen
Irving, Sir Charles


Devlin, Tim
Jackson, Robert


Dickens, Geoffrey
Janman, Tim


Dorrell, Stephen
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Johnston, Sir Russell


Dover, Den
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Dunn, Bob
Jones, Robert B (Herts W)


Durant, Sir Anthony
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Dykes, Hugh
Key, Robert


Eggar, Tim
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Emery, Sir Peter
King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)
Kirkhope, Timothy


Evennett, David
Kirk wood, Archy


Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas
Knapman, Roger


Fallon, Michael
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Favell, Tony
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Fearn, Ronald
Knowles, Michael


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Lang, Rt Hon Ian


Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
Latham, Michael


Fishburn, John Dudley
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Fookes, Dame Janet
Lightbown, David


Forman, Nigel
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Livsey, Richard


Forth, Eric
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Lord, Michael


Fox, Sir Marcus
Luce, Rt Hon Sir Richard


Franks, Cecil
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Freeman, Roger
Macfarlane, Sir Neil


French, Douglas
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Gale, Roger
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)


Gardiner, Sir George
Maclennan, Robert


Garel-Jones, Tristan
McLoughlin, Patrick


Gill, Christopher
McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael


Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


Glyn, Dr Sir Alan
Madel, David


Goodlad, Alastair
Malins, Humfrey


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Mans, Keith


Gorst, John
Maples, John


Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)
Marland, Paul


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Marlow, Tony


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Gregory, Conal
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Mates, Michael


Grist, Ian
Maude, Hon Francis


Ground, Patrick
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Grylls, Michael
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Mellor, Rt Hon David


Hague, William
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)
Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Miller, Sir Hal


Hampson, Dr Keith
Mills, lain


Hanley, Jeremy
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Hannam, John
Mitchell, Sir David


Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')
Moate, Roger


Harris, David
Monro, Sir Hector


Haselhurst, Alan
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Hawkins, Christopher
Morris, M (N'hampton S)


Hayes, Jerry
Morrison, Sir Charles


Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney
Morrison, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Hayward, Robert
Moss, Malcolm


Heath, Rt Hon Edward
Moynihan, Hon Colin


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Neale, Sir Gerrard






Nelson, Anthony
Stanbrook, Ivor


Neubert, Sir Michael
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Steen, Anthony


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Stern, Michael


Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley
Stevens, Lewis


Oppenheim, Phillip
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Owen, Rt Hon Dr David
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Page, Richard
Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)


Paice, James
Stokes, Sir John


Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil
Sumberg, David


Patnick, Irvine
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Patten, Rt Hon John
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Pawsey, James
Temple-Morris, Peter


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Porter, David (Waveney)
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Portillo, Michael
Thorne, Neil


Price, Sir David
Thornton, Malcolm


Raffan, Keith
Thurnham, Peter


Raison, Rt Hon Sir Timothy
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Rathbone, Tim
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Redwood, John
Tracey, Richard


Ronton, Rt Hon Tim
Twinn, Dr Ian


Rhodes James, Robert
Viggers, Peter


Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm
Walden, George


Roberts, Sir Wyn (Conwy)
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Roe, Mrs Marion
Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)


Rossi, Sir Hugh
Wallace, James


Rost, Peter
Waller, Gary


Rowe, Andrew
Walters, Sir Dennis


Rumbold, Rt Hon Mrs Angela
Ward, John


Ryder, Rt Hon Richard
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Sainsbury, Hon Tim
Warren, Kenneth


Sayeed, Jonathan
Watts, John


Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas
Wheeler, Sir John


Shaw, David (Dover)
Whitney, Ray


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Widdecombe, Ann


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Wiggin, Jerry


Shelton, Sir William
Wilshire, David


Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Winterton, Nicholas


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Wolfson, Mark


Shersby, Michael
Wood, Timothy


Sims, Roger
Woodcock, Dr. Mike


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Yeo, Tim


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Soames, Hon Nicholas



Speed, Keith
Tellers for the Noes:


Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)
Mr. John M. Taylor and


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Mr. Tom Sackville.


Squire, Robin

Question accordingly negatived.

Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No.30 (Questions on amendments):—

The House divided: Ayes 273, Noes 24.

Division No. 95]
[7.14 pm


AYES


Adley, Robert
Baldry, Tony


Aitken, Jonathan
Batiste, Spencer


Alexander, Richard
Bellingham, Henry


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Bendall, Vivian


Allason, Rupert
Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Biffen, Rt Hon John


Amess, David
Blackburn, Dr John G.


Amos, Alan
Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Arbuthnot, James
Body, Sir Richard


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Boscawen, Hon Robert


Arnold, Sir Thomas
Boswell, Tim


Atkins, Robert
Bottomley, Peter


Atkinson, David
Bottomley, Mrs Virginia


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Bowden, A. (Brighton K'pto'n)


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Bowden, Gerald Dulwich)





Bowis, John
Hanley, Jeremy


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Hannam, John


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)


Brazier, Julian
Harris, David


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Haselhurst, Alan


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Hawkins, Christopher


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Hayes, Jerry


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick
Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney


Buck, Sir Antony
Hayward, Robert


Budgen, Nicholas
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Burns, Simon
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Burt, Alistair
Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)


Butler, Chris
Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)


Butterfill, John
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hill, James


Carrington, Matthew
Hind, Kenneth


Carttiss, Michael
Holt, Richard


Cash, William
Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Chapman, Sydney
Hunt, Rt Hon David


Chope, Christopher
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Plymouth)
Hunter, Andrew


Clark, Rt Hon Sir William
Irvine, Michael


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Irving, Sir Charles


Colvin, Michael
Jackson, Robert


Conway, Derek
Janman, Tim


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Jones, Robert B (Herts W)


Cope, Rt Hon John
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Cormack, Patrick
Key, Robert


Couchman, James
Kilfedder, James


Cran, James
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Critchley, Julian
King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Kirkhope, Timothy


Curry, David
Knapman, Roger


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Day, Stephen
Knowles, Michael


Dorrell, Stephen
Lang, Rt Hon Ian


Dover, Den
Latham, Michael


Dunn, Bob
Lee, John (Pendle)


Durant, Sir Anthony
Leigh, Edward Gainsbor'gh)


Eggar, Tim
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Emery, Sir Peter
Lightbown, David


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Evennett, David
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas
Lord, Michael


Fallon, Michael
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Fenner, Dame Peggy
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)


Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
McLoughlin, Patrick


Fishburn, John Dudley
McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael


Fookes, Dame Janet
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


Forman, Nigel
Madel, David


Forth, Eric
Malins, Humfrey


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Mans, Keith


Fox, Sir Marcus
Maples, John


Franks, Cecil
Marland, Paul


Freeman, Roger
Marlow, Tony


French, Douglas
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Gale, Roger
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Gardiner, Sir George
Mates, Michael


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Maude, Hon Francis


Gill, Christopher
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Glyn, Dr Sir Alan
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Goodlad, Alastair
Miller, Sir Hal


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Mills, lain


Gorst, John
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)
Mitchell, Sir David


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Moate, Roger


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Monro, Sir Hector


Gregory, Conal
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Morris, M (N'hampton S)


Grist, Ian
Morrison, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Ground, Patrick
Moss, Malcolm


Grylls, Michael
Moynihan, Hon Colin


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Neale, Sir Gerrard


Hague, William
Nelson, Anthony


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Neubert, Sir Michael


Hampson, Dr Keith
Newton, Rt Hon Tony






Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Steen, Anthony


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Stern, Michael


Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley
Stevens, Lewis


Oppenheim, Phillip
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Page, Richard
Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)


Paice, James
Stokes, Sir John


Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil
Sumberg, David


Patnick, Irvine
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Patten, Rt Hon John
Temple-Morris, Peter


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Pawsey, James
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Thorne, Neil


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Thornton, Malcolm


Portillo, Michael
Thurnham, Peter


Price, Sir David
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Raffan, Keith
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Renton, Rt Hon Tim
Tracey, Richard


Rhodes James, Robert
Twinn, Dr Ian


Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas
Viggers, Peter


Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Roberts, Sir Wyn (Conwy)
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Roe, Mrs Marion
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Rossi, Sir Hugh
Waller, Gary


Rowe, Andrew
Walters, Sir Dennis


Rumbold, Rt Hon Mrs Angela
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Ryder, Rt Hon Richard
Warren, Kenneth


Sainsbury, Hon Tim
Watts, John


Sayeed, Jonathan
Wheeler, Sir John


Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas
Whitney, Ray


Shaw, David (Dover)
Widdecombe, Ann


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Wilshire, David


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Shelton, Sir William
Winterton, Nicholas


Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)
Wolfson, Mark


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Wood, Timothy


Shersby, Michael
Woodcock, Dr. Mike


Sims, Roger
Yeo, Tim


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)



Speed, Keith
Tellers for the Ayes:


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Mr. John M. Taylor and


Stanbrook, Ivor
Mr. Tom Sackville.


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John





NOES


Alton, David
Kirkwood, Archy


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Livsey, Richard


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Maclennan, Robert


Beith, A. J.
Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'I &amp; Bute)


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Siilars, Jim


Carr, Michael
Skinner, Dennis


Cartwright, John
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Douglas, Dick
Wallace, James


Fearn, Ronald
Wigley, Dafydd


Howells, Geraint



Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Tellers for the Noes:


Johnston, Sir Russell
Mr. Malcolm Bruce and


Jones, leuan (Ynys Môn)
Mr. Andrew Welsh.

Question accordingly agreed to.

MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House welcomes the fact that the Government is undertaking a thorough review of local government finance, structure and functions; looks forward to a statement when that review has reached the appropriate stage; and in the meantime notes that, on information published to date, the average community charge actually set by local authorities in England will be £393, and welcomes the generous provision made by the Government, by way of the community charge reduction scheme, community charge benefit and income support, the combined effect of which will be to reduce the average net charge actually payable next year to under £275.

Family Hardship

Mr. Michael Meacher: I beg to move,
That this House notes the increasing financial pressure families are facing due to the Government-created recession; further notes that low-income families are now hit hardest of all by record house repossessions, fast rising unemployment, service cutbacks caused by the poll tax, and widespread benefit deductions; and calls on the Government to adopt a Budget strategy that will tackle poverty rather than penalise it and in particular to increase child benefit to £9·55 per week per child and pensions by an extra £5 per week for a single pensioner and £8 per week for a married couple, to cut interest rates, and to abolish the poll tax.
Although almost every family has been hit hard by higher interest rates, higher mortgages and higher inflation in this Government-created recession, low-income families have been hit hardest of all by record home repossessions, fast-rising unemployment, service cuts caused by the poll tax, and widespread compulsory reductions of benefit.
The Government's role in a recession should be to protect people from its worst ravages and to overcome it. In fact, the Government have done the reverse. They laid the foundations for the recession, aggravated people's experience of it, and are now blocking their escape.
Recently, home repossessions have been running at the unprecedented rate of nearly 45,000 a year, and the figure will climb even higher this year. The Government pressured people, through hefty discounts and right-tobuy schemes, into home ownership—which families on low incomes can ill afford—and then pulled the rug on them with their own policies.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer insisted on using interest rates exclusively to control the excess demand that he had unleashed, which gratuitously forced up interest rates and mortgage repayments higher than necessary—and beyond the reach of thousands of low-paid workers.
Where low-paid workers become redundant, the Chancellor is restricting mortgage interest payments for the first four months, which will increase the number of people who are driven out of their homes.
Unemployment is being used as an economic weapon more harshly in Britain than anywhere else in the EEC —and the lowest-paid are again the main victims.

Mr. James Paice: Will the hon. Gentleman list those European countries which have lower unemployment than this country?

Mr. Meacher: If the Government had not made 30 changes to benefit calculations, and therefore 30 changes to the manner in which unemployment benefit is calculated, Britain would probably already have higher unemployment than most EEC countries.
Over the past year, unemployment in the EEC grew by 0·2 per cent. overall. In France, it rose by 2·9 per cent.; Italy, 4·7 per cent.; Greece, 15 per cent., and in the United Kingdom, 16·2 per cent. In Germany, unemployment fell by 14 per cent.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: What is this year's figure for this country?

Mr. Meacher: It is rising extremely rapidly towards 3 million by the end of the year.

Mr. Bottomley: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Meacher: No. The hon. Gentleman has already made his point from a sedentary position and I answered his question.
Instead of assisting the victims of their economic mismanagement, the Government have penalised them. Ten years ago, the unemployed were entitled to earnings-related unemployment benefit. They received 100 per cent. of their rents and rates and all their mortgage interest was paid. Eighteen to 25-year-olds received adult rate benefit and 16 to 17-year-olds could claim. One-off payments were available for those on supplementary benefit for necessities such as cookers and beds. Even if someone lost a job because of a row with his employer, the penalty was limited to six weeks reduction of unemployment benefit.
A decade later, earnings-related unemployment benefit has been abolished; housing benefit no longer covers the full market rent; 20 per cent. of the poll tax must be paid; mortgage interest payments are restricted; and single payments have largely been replaced by loans.

Mr. Keith Mans: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Meacher: I will give way in a moment. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman is embarrassed by the length of the list. Eighteen to 25-year-olds now receive a lower rate of benefit than adult benefit and most 16 to 17-year-olds receive nothing at all. If an employer claims, however unfairly, that someone left a job unnecessarily, the Government stop unemployment benefit and cut income support by 40 per cent. for six months. The result of all that for tens of thousands of low-paid and average-paid workers is a spiral from unemployment to poverty and destitution.

Mr. Mans: Am I right in thinking, therefore, that the Labour party will reinstate earnings-related unemploy-ment benefit? Is he going to give earnings-related benefit to those yuppies who have been made unemployed in the City after earning £100,000 a year?

Mr. Meacher: That was an interesting comment which we will recall before the general election. The hon. Gentleman suggests that people who are entitled to earnings-related benefit are yuppies. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] I will answer in my own way. The people to whom I was referring were entitled to earnings-related unemployment benefit because they had paid for it through their national insurance stamps. A private insurance company that removed an entitlement gratui-tously and one-sidedly would certainly be taken to court for breach of contract.
Growing cuts in local services are another feature of the deepening recession. Again, the families on the lowest incomes are hit hardest because they depend most on those services. I quote a few examples of cuts being made this year. Tory-controlled Berkshire county council must make £7·5 million of cuts to avoid capping. Those cuts include £1 million in social services involving reduced staffing in elderly person's homes, the closure of a sheltered workshop, increased home care charges and community service cuts, including major ones in library services, and the closure of a youth and community centre.
Tory-controlled Ealing must make £10 million-worth of service cuts to cut its poll tax. Those involve the closure of two homes for the elderly, reduced spending on meals on wheels and an end to child care allowances for staff.
Tory-controlled Hillingdon must make budget cuts of £23 million to fulfill the Tory party manifesto pledge on the poll tax. Those cuts include the closure of a showpiece school with special facilities for handicapped children, an end to the school meals service and increased charges in a range of services for the elderly.

Mr. Jerry Hayes: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Meacher: I think that I know what point the hon. Gentleman wants to make, and I will probably make it for him if he will be patient for a moment.
Tory-controlled Warwickshire must make £500,000 worth of cuts in social services, with further possible social services cuts of £1 million to avoid capping. Last, but not least, Westminster council—as ever, Tory-controlled— must make cuts of almost £1 million in the social services budget, including proposals to increase home help charges and close two holiday homes, a residential care home and two play groups.
The evidence is consistent around the country, as the report of the Association of Directors of Social Services shows, and I would be the first to admit that it applies in Labour-controlled as well as Tory-controlled areas. The poll tax has become the juggernaut for the destruction of local social services. It was the Government's own flagship creation, and its victims are overwhelmingly the elderly, the disabled, lone parents and the unemployed.

Mr. Hayes: The hon. Gentleman has been good enough to be honest with the House. He knows that there are difficulties with some Labour-controlled authorities, of which Lambeth is an example. True to form, the hon. Gentleman said that it was all due to the wicked Tory poll tax. The name Joan Twelves might just ring bells for the hon. Gentleman. She is the leader of Lambeth council and she said:
Even if Labour wins the general election, no one in Lambeth can have any illusions that an incoming Labour Government is the cavalry riding to the council's rescue. It is more than clear that no additional resources will be available.
That was a quote not from the Tory press, but from Joan Twelves, the Labour leader of Lambeth council. Is she wrong or right?

Mr. Meacher: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman has not read our report entitled "Fair Rates". I should be happy to send him a copy and I am sure that after today's debate Conservative Members will read that document most carefully. The document proposes, among other things, a change in the balance of the costing of local government finance between Exchequer grants in the centre and the local raising of finance. It is precisely for those reasons that hard-hit local authorities such as Lambeth can, under our fair rates system, expect significant assistance.
Support services that are often crucial to keeping a family afloat have been shut. Personal and family budgets have also been cut drastically because of rising indebtedness. The latest figures show that one household


in 20 now has rental debts. At the end of 1990, 159,000 owner-occupier households had mortgage arrears. In 1979 the figure was 8,000. There has been a twentyfold increase.

Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Meacher: No, I want to make progress, because I have a lot to say.
In 1979, 2,500 homes were repossessed. At the end of 1990, 44,000 were repossessed. That is a seventeenfold increase. Perhaps most serious of all, in 1989, the year for which the latest figures are available, 2 million households had problems repaying debt including more than 500,000 with serious problems involving arrears to creditors that were more than three months outstanding.

Mr. Peter Thurnham: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Meacher: I will give way later.
Now, 18 months later, the number of families crippled by debt will be significantly higher. Those on the lowest incomes are hit even harder. They often have the biggest debts and the smallest incomes to meet them. Income support is now only one eighth of national average earnings, yet the Government have taken powers to reduce it further by compulsory deductions of benefit.
Of the miserable sum of £37·60 a week, which, as I said in a previous debate, is the figure for income support for a single adult, something of which no Minister was aware, up to 15 per cent. can now be deducted for housing, gas, electricity or water debts, and up to another 10 per cent. can be deducted for current liabilities for the same items.

Miss Emma Nicholson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Meacher: I am finishing my point. In addition, the Secretary of State has laid it down that another 5 per cent. can be deducted for social fund loan repayments and that a further 5 per cent. can be deducted for poll tax arrears. For those two items alone, for which the right hon. Gentleman himself is directly responsible, according to his own estimates, in the current year 1·25 million claimants are being forced to live below the income support poverty line—a situation that previous Governments had never even countenanced, let alone engineered.
However, the right hon. Gentleman proposes to go even further. He is about to introduce a Bill to allow another 5 per cent. to be compulsorily deducted from an unemployed father on income support for payment of child maintenance. The Home Secretary proposes that yet another 5 per cent. can be deducted from income support for payment of a fine. Frankly, the right hon. Gentleman can pay himself the tribute that none of his predecessors ever received—income support, which used to be the sacrosanct safety net below which nobody would ever fall, is now so riddled with holes that the principle of protected poverty line income has all but disappeared.
The previous Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Croydon, Central (Mr. Moore), liked to tell us that poverty did not really exist. The present Secretary of State has clearly taken him at his word and virtually abolished the poverty line.

Mr. Sayeed: The hon. Gentleman will know that the previous Labour Government cut support to the family by nearly 8 per cent. in real terms. Why should anyone trust the Labour party to assist families in future?

Mr. Meacher: We continued to increase the value of child benefit throughout our period in government. It is amazing that a Conservative Member could be so foolish as to suggest that his Government's record on family support is not appalling. During the previous election, the Government said that they would continue to pay child benefit, but, with utter cynicism, they froze it a few months after the election. They have kept it frozen, with the one exception of an increase for the eldest child.

Miss Emma Nicholson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Meacher: No, I shall not give way.
We hold the Government guilty on three counts. First, they generated the recession in the first place by their own gross economic mismanagement. Secondly, for all I he reasons that I set out, they have gratuitously and deliberately placed the brunt of the hardship that their recession has caused on the most vulnerable and helpless group in society. Thirdly, they are now blocking the escape routes that families are seeking out of the predicament which they, the Government, have caused. I intend to pursue that third charge.

Miss Emma Nicholson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Meacher: As the hon. Lady is extremely persistent, I shall give way before I make my next main point.

Miss Nicholson: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that his mortgage statistics are somewhat flawed? The fact that there are now 3·5 million more home-owners means that the percentage rise must be set in a much larger context. More than 98·3 per cent. of people with mortgages are not in serious arrears. In 1990, fewer than half of 1 per cent. of all mortgagors had their homes repossessed.

Mr. Meacher: The hon. Lady is certainly well equipped with statistics which she has learnt by heart. However, perhaps she would be good enough to recognise that 159,000 people in mortgage arrears is unpreceden-tedly bad. There has never been a time since the war, when home ownership was lower, when anything like that number of people has mortgage arrears. The number of people with severe mortgage arrears who are being turned out of their homes is 44,000. I hope that the hon. Lady accepts that the Government have forced 44,000 people out of their homes. Is not that a disgraceful record?

Miss Nicholson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Meacher: No, I shall not give way. I wish to make many further points.
What families on the breadline want is work, but the Government are not only rapidly pushing up unemploy-ment as the main regulator of demand because they refuse to make any use of credit controls, they are—it is almost unbelievable folly in the pit of the recession—cutting training and enterprise council training budgets by £300 million. The Government are apparently ready to spend £16 billion this year on unemployment benefit, income


support and tax forgone from the unemployed, but they are not prepared to spend a tenth of that sum on providing training to enable people to be employed.
The education training programme for the adult unemployed has been cut by more than 20 per cent. Also, 10,000 training places in the voluntary sector are now at risk, yet we are told in today's papers that the Government's latest temporary work scheme will not have any appreciable training element. Britain is the only country in the Economic Community in which youth unemployment rose last year. It rose by 17 per cent. in this country, whereas it fell by 20 per cent. in Germany, yet the Government have still not put a jot of extra money into youth training and they are still denying 16 to 17-year-olds virtually all entitlement to benefit. That is why cardboard city is still growing.

Mrs. Teresa Gorman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Meacher: I shall give way for the last time.

Mrs. Gorman: Is not it true that the Government's policy now guarantees 16 and 17-year-olds a place in training? They do not need the benefit because they have somewhere else to go to spend their time.

Mr. Meacher: In that case, perhaps the hon. Lady would like to come along the Strand with me tonight and look under a number of bridges, in particular Waterloo bridge. She will find that hundreds of, if not a few thousand, young people are sleeping rough. That is a direct result of the Government's policy.
In terms of benefits, the Government are making it harder, not easier, to return to work. For example, I refer to the £43 a week means test on unemployment benefit which the right hon. Gentleman imposed last year. If a part-time worker now works for one or more days a week, he or she loses a whole week's benefit. That is a major disincentive to people taking up part-time work.
The unemployment trap actually sharpened last year. The Government's own document on expenditure plans for social security, which was published last month, shows that more people now lose 50p to 99p in every extra pound they earn this year than they did last year. Family credit is the Government's flagship policy for getting the low-paid back into work, but it is now emerging as the biggest hype of the decade.
That same report shows that, despite costly advertising, only 50 per cent. of those entitled actually claimed. That percentage is no higher than it was for family income supplement. It shows that it still takes three days longer to get family credit than it took to get family income supplement. It shows also that the family credit error rate is four times higher than it was for family income supplement.

Mr. Thurnham: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Meacher: I shall not give way again.

Mr. Thurnham: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman said earlier that he would give way to me later. He now says that he will not give way.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): It is not a matter for the Chair whether the hon. Member gives way.

Mr. Meacher: The hon. Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) will have to be quicker off the mark in future. I have given way so many times that it is in the general interest of the House that I should make progress.
Ministers are making it clear that they have no use for or are even opposed to a family policy to help people out of recession. The Minister of State, Home Office, the right hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Mrs. Rumbold), gave an interview this month to the "Family Policy Bulletin", which is published by the Family Policies Study Centre. The article states:
Asked if … there was no need for a Government family policy, she replied that there was 'a great deal of truth' to the suggestion.
The article went on to state:
Despite acknowledging the need for an expansion of childcare to help women who wished to combine motherhood with a job, she said she did not mind Britain lagging behind its European partners in publicly funded provision.
The right hon. Lady also stated—I stress that these are her actual words:
I am antipathetic to the notion that there should be universal access to child care:—'creches for all'. It simply exacerbates the trend that we have had of seeing that it is possible if you've got responsibilities to put them on to the state.
The Minister displays an extraordinary degree of blindness or indifference to the problems of families who are struggling on the poverty line. Obviously, she has not read the National Audit Office report, "Support for Low Income Families", which was published six weeks ago. it said that half of all income support claimants who were interviewed cited the need to look after children as the barrier to finding full-time work. Nor has the right hon. Lady read the previous report of the National Audit Office, which pointed out that the Government were undermining their pretensions to helping parents to work by refusing to allow claimants to offset their child care costs against earnings and by running down child care provision.
However, I am glad that the right hon. Lady then had the grace to express support for raising child benefit, but she added,
as and when the country can afford it".

Mr. Ian Bruce: rose——

Mr. Meacher: No. I shall not give way, because I wish to answer what the Minister of State said.
As the Secretary of State has direct responsibility for both these actions, perhaps he can explain how he can afford £1·3 billion for bribing people to take out highly speculative personal pensions, yet he cannot afford to spend half that sum to restore the real value of child benefit after his four-year freeze——

Mr. Ian Bruce: Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that very point?

Mr. Meacher: No. I am not interested in the hon. Gentleman. I am interested in the Secretary of State, who is responsible for these policies. If the right hon. Gentleman wishes to answer, I shall give way, but he does not need a nanny.
How can the Secretary of State pretend to have a family policy until he has an answer to my question about priorities? I should be very glad if he could answer me now.

The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Tony Newton): I shall just say one thing now to the hon. Gentleman, because there are several points that I should like to make in my speech. As I said in my uprating statement, a family policy does not concern itself only with families with children—as the hon. Gentleman so often implies—important though they are. Families consist of elderly relatives, pensioners and disabled people and involve a whole range of responsibilities. Anybody in my position needs to look across the board to balance the help and support that he gives.

Mr. Meacher: I could not agree more. In that case, why have the Government given such a bum deal to the pensioners, the disabled, lone parents and all those who depend on benefits? All those groups, especially pensioners, have faced a huge erosion in their benefits, to the tune of £22 billion, as we have said before in similar debates. I notice that the right hon. Gentleman cannot answer the question that I put to him.

Mr. Mans: The hon. Gentleman did not answer mine.

Mr. Meacher: As higher child benefit is a major way of helping more lone parents back into work, I am sure that Mrs. Sandra Cocking from Dewsbury, whose letter I have with me, would be extremely interested in the Secretary of State's answer. She stated:
I am writing to you for information and help"—
[Interruption.] I see that the right hon. Gentleman is getting some help from other sources and I am glad of it because he needs some assistance in this debate.
The letter continued:
I am a single parent of three children and work 25 hours a week as a receptionist at B.R.B. Batley, West Yorkshire.
I have always tried to support myself and my three children, but when you try to help yourself today, you end up worse off.

Mr. Ian Bruce: Will the hon. Gentleman give way about child benefit?

Mr. Meacher: No, I am not giving way. [HON. MEMBERS: "Give way."] I have made it perfectly clear that I shall not give way again, except to the Secretary of State.
That lady then gives a summary of her weekly income, both when working and unemployed. It shows that she is about £15 a week worse off when working. When will the Government ever learn that the biggest disincentive to lone parents returning to work is the Government and their failure to motivate a major extension of child care provision throughout the country and to provide for some offset against what are often otherwise prohibitive child care costs?
If the Government are not prepared to assist people who are making efforts to overcome their own problems in a recession that the Government have foisted on them, at least they should not actively hinder them.
I have with me another letter, a copy of which I have sent to the Secretary of State. This is from Mrs. Dundon of Sherwood, Nottingham, and speaks volumes about the problems that I have encountered in my constituency clinic and which other hon. Members have no doubt encountered, too. Mr. Dundon lost his job after an accident. After he visited his local DSS office in

Nottingham on 4 February, he was denied sickness benefit 10 days later because he had 13 stamps missing. Part of the letter states:
In the meantime he was told he would have to go to Income Support and make a claim with them. He did that on Friday 15th Feb, everything was explained to them, they got in touch with Sickness Benefit, then my husband was told that Income Support would be paying me through Sickness Benefit, his pay day would be a Tuesday, and he would be paid on 19th Feb … On Tuesday when the money did not come, my husband rang the DHSS and was told that he would have to wait 14 days for anything.
It would mean that that family would have waited a month after the original claim.
Mrs. Dundon's letter continued:
My husband explained that we could not wait, because we had two children ages 9 and 7 years and that there would be nothing for them coming home from school to eat. He was told that this was his problem and to ring back at 2 pm. Then he rang"——
the letter names the man whom he rang—
dealing with lost N.I. stamps who put him through to someone else. He and to explain everything to this person about his N.I. stamps, what was said at his interview on Friday 15th at Income Support. He was told to hang on, then he was asked his date of birth and N.I. number, then was left to hang on again and then told that they would ring him back by 2 pm. No one had called, so once again my husband rang back. When he explained that we had been waiting for a phone call, he was told that no one in the office said they would ring him. He then said, 'I was also told this morning to ring back at 2 pm. Can I speak to whoever is dealing with my claim?' The answer was 'No'. He said 'Can I speak to the supervisor?' `No'. 'Can I speak to the manager?' `No'. 'Well then, can you tell me who I am speaking to now?' `No', and then the phone was slammed down on him. He was so frustrated by this time, he rang back again. He asked if he could speak to who ever was dealing with his claim. We don't know if it was the same girl or not, but she said that there was a managers' meeting and that the man who was dealing with his claim was at the meeting. My husband then said, 'Why couldn't you have told me this morning instead of asking me to ring back at 2 pm?' This girl replied, 'We don't have to tell you anything, ring back at 3.30 pm he might be here by then.' Again, my husband asked who he was speaking to and the phone was slammed down on him.
I entirely understand the strain and stress on those staff. They are undertrained and overworked. However, before I am told that that was an isolated case, I should point out that the National Audit Office report, published six weeks ago, found from its survey of 52 offices that such disquieting conditions were widespread. Errors in social security payments were twice as high as the Government had previously claimed. Public satisfaction with the service offered by benefit offices had fallen. Half the poorest claimants did not understand how their benefit was calculated. Perhaps hon. Members will be surprised that as many as half actually do understand it. Only one in 10 offices met the desirable standards for claims work. That is a damning indictment of the Government's modernisa-tion programme on which no less than £2 billion has now been spent.
I conclude by repeating that we indict the Government on three counts. They created the recession by their economic incompetence; they made the weakest and most vulnerable families their main victims; and they are now blocking those families in their best endeavours to escape the hardship into which the Government have cast them. It is not only Mr. and Mrs. Dundon but millions of others who have experienced at first hand this Government's so-called policy on family hardship who now think that they should go.

The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Tony Newton): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the question and to add instead thereof:
`notes that the policies of the last Labour Government pushed inflation to an all-time peak of 27 per cent., destroying savings and eroding living standards for millions of families and that Her Majesty's Opposition remains committed to policies which would once again sharply raise taxation and inflation; and commends Her Majesty's Government's record in creating new jobs, in widening opportunities for home ownership, in directing additional help to low-income families, and in bringing about an increase of one-third in the real take-home pay of a family on average earnings; and reaffirms its support for the Government's priority in fighting inflation.'.
Before I go any further, I hope that the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) will understand that there is no way in which I can comment on the individual cases that he raised, although, of course, I shall ensure that they are looked into.
There are some things for which affection grows with familiarity, but the speech of the hon. Member for Oldham, West is not one of them. It is simply boringly predictable in the overheated, overstated and unrecognis-able picture——

Mr. Frank Haynes: The Secretary of State always says that.

Mr. Newton: I always say it because it is always true. Essentially, it is one speech, and it is always over the top. I could not understand why the hon. Member for Oldham, West was so reluctant to give way to my hon. Friends, because the evidence of anyone behind him, wishing to speak was thin indeed. The number has now increased to four, but during most of his speech only three Opposition Back-Bench Members were present for this much-trumpeted debate. That says something about the hon. Gentleman's credibility.
In replying to the speech of the hon. Member for Oldham, West, the first thing that I need to do is to restore some balance to the discussion. To do that, I simply refer him to some facts. Who would have thought from listening to the hon. Gentleman that, in Britain now, a man with a family and two children on average earnings has experienced during the lifetime of this Government an increase of 31 per cent. in his real take-home pay? That compares with an increase of precisely 1 per cent. during the time of the Government of which the hon. Gentleman was a luminary.
A comparison was given by one of my hon. Friends of total family support by this Government and the previous one. Again, there was an increase under this Government and a decrease under the Government who went before them. I shall not rehearse them now, because the hon. Gentleman will think that I am being boringly repetitive, but he had heard me use before the figures on what happened to pensioners' average net incomes under this Government and under the previous Government. Their incomes have risen 10 times faster under this Government.
Above all, the hon. Gentleman knows—because it goes to his Achilles' heel and that of the people for whom he seeks to speak—what has happened to pensioners' incomes from savings under this Government. There has been a huge increase. They have more than doubled under this Government, whereas they fell under the Labour Government that went before.

Mr. Ian Bruce: I am sure that my right hon. Friend would not wish to be unkind to the Opposition Front Bench spokesman. At least on this measure, the Opposition have given a commitment—it is the only commitment in any Labour party document—to increase child benefit. I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman did not want me to make that point to him.
Did my right hon. Friend read, as I did, the Sunday Times article written by probably one of the most knowledgeable people in the House, the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), the Chairman of the Social Services Select Committee? He said of the Labour party policy on child benefit that it was
not the most sensible way to distribute the extra money to ensure that it reaches those most in need.
Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that the Government will take that lesson?

Mr. Peter Bottomley: rose——

Mr. Newton: I shall give way to my hon. Friend later.
The point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, South and other closely related points are matters which I intend to come to in a moment or two, but which I shall deal with in a slightly different way.
I was about to say that I would not load the House with yet more figures, because the figures that I have given, together with some of the devastating interventions of my hon. Friends in the speech of the hon. Member for Oldham, West, are more than enough to expose the basic lack of credibility in the story that the hon. Gentleman sought to tell, not only when he described what has happened to families under this Government, but, perhaps even more importantly, when he suggested the benefits that a Labour Government could introduce.
We do not need to speculate about what the hon. Gentleman would do if, by some mischance, he acquired responsibility for social security. We do not need the crystal ball because we have the book—or rather, the press cuttings. It will be within the knowledge of everyone in the House that the hon. Gentleman was a Social Security Minister—I have the exact dates in front of me—from 12 June 1975 to 14 April 1976. Indeed, he was probably sitting at the side of Mrs. Barbara Castle, nodding dutifully—I hope that he was nodding dutifully, because I always like my Ministers to nod dutifully—when she explained to the House on 7 July 1975:
Indexation of the child benefit is not appropriate."— [Official Report, 7 July 1975; Vol. 895, c. 238.]
The hon. Member for Oldham, West was certainly a Minister in the Department of Health and Social Security —as the Department then was—when inflation reached the record level of 26·9 per cent. in August 1975. High inflation was one reason why pensioners' savings incomes were so bad under that Government. The hon. Gentleman was at the DHSS in a period when building society savers had a negative return on their savings of 16·5 per cent. in 1975 and almost 9 per cent. in 1976. As I have already said, pensioners' average weekly savings incomes were falling. On top of everything else, the hon. Member for Oldham, West was a Social Security Minister in the year when the Christmas bonus to pensioners was cancelled in 1975. For all I know, he was the Minister who fixed that the bonus would not be paid in 1976 either, before he finally left the Department.

Mr. Meacher: As the Secretary of State is so extensive in his historical reminiscences, will he confirm to the


House that the basic state retirement pension, the most important pension to the poorest pensioners, increased by 20 per cent. in real terms in five years, under the Labour Government, whereas in 11 years under this Government, it has increased by rather less than 2 per cent.? Will he also confirm that child benefit, or family allowance as it was in the early part of the Labour Government, was increased every year, whereas in the past four years it has been frozen?

Mr. Newton: I am coming to some of the hon. Gentleman's points about child benefit. On pensions, the hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that the income of the great majority of pensioners is made up from a variety of sources. The Labour Government did no service to pensioners by dealing with only one element of pensioners' incomes while decimating all the others, with the results that I have explained. That is precisely what a Labour Government would do again.

Mr. Hayes: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Newton: May I complete this point before I give way to my hon. Friend?
The culmination of the hon. Gentleman's career at the DHSS may even have precipitated his departure. It is relevant to what the hon. Gentleman has just said. I have used this article before, but I shall use it again, and I shall probably use it in other debates yet. In The Times of 11 March 1976, there was an article entitled:
Minister shouted down at pensions rally".
It said:
Old-age pensioners shouted down Mr. Meacher, Under-Secretary of State at the Department of Health and Social Security, yesterday as he tried to explain the Government's record on pensions.
He has not done any better in explaining his party's policy some 15 years later.

Mr. Hayes: This is the perfect point for my intervention, as we are doing a pleasant trip down memory lane. That would not by any chance be the occasion when the hon. Member for Oldham, West was responsible for robbing pensioners of £1·2 billion by shifting from the historic to the forecasting method?

Mr. Newton: It was not quite. That was the policy that he supported in his subsequent post at the Department of Employment.

Miss Emma Nicholson: Would my right hon. Friend also like to remind the Opposition that, when Barbara Castle introduced child benefit, she was either utterly cynical or utterly stupid, because she told the House that it would target more money on poorer families?

Mr. Newton: Again, my hon. Friend is taking me to a point which I shall come to quite quickly. Perhaps I should come to it even more quickly, than I had intended. I referred to the hon. Gentleman's record, but in a sense we can now see it happening again, because we have the hon. Gentleman's plans. That brings me to the extremely interesting and topical questions—from which the hon. Gentleman so notably shied away in his speech this evening—posed by the publication today of the Labour party's shadow Budget, entitled, "A budget for investment and recovery"—clearly, the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) has a sense of

humour. I have a number of questions for the hon. Member for Oldham, West, which I hope he will answer, and I shall gladly give way if he wishes to intervene.
First, the hon. Gentleman made a little reference to the part of the motion that involves what he regards as his priority commitment to child benefit, but virtually no reference to what has hitherto been described by the Labour party as its priority commitment to increase pensions. At about 5 pm yesterday, when we saw the Labour motion, it included pensions. Some time this morning, the Labour party's entire economic team published the attractively printed document—its contents are less satisfactory—which, to all intents and purposes, makes no mention of pensions or pensioners.
What has happened? The hon. Gentleman said that the issue of pensions was one of his priorities, and one to which the Labour party was committed. That is what the motion states, but he has not referred to it. Where did that commitment go between 5 pm last night and mid-morning today?

Mr. Meacher: The right hon. Gentleman is being exceedingly silly. Our commitment to pensions is exactly what it was before. We shall increase pensions by £5 a week for a single pensioner, £8 a week for a married couple, over and above the normal uprating. We shall restore the earnings link that this Government took away 11 years ago, as a result of which a single pensioner is £12·80 a week worse off and a married couple £20·50 worse off. We shall improve and restore the state earnings-related pension scheme. That defines exactly the position as it was, and that remains the position. The right hon. Gentleman should talk about the motion—Government policy on family hardship and the recession—and not make bogus points about the Opposition.

Mr. Newton: That argument is unbelievably thin. The motion calls on the Government to adopt a Budget strategy that will include the increase in child benefit, to which the hon. Gentleman has referred, and the pensions increase, to which he has not referred. The motion presents both those issues as priorities, in line with what Labour has consistently said during the past few weeks. But in Labour's stated proposals for a shadow Budget next week, the pensioners have disappeared. They have ceased to be the priority that they were——

Mr. Meacher: The right hon. Gentleman is making a fool of himself.

Mr. Newton: I think not,
The pensioners have ceased to be the priority that they were in the motion tabled last night. To all intents and purposes, pensioners are not even mentioned in the document published by the Labour party's economic team this morning.
It is a slight exaggeration in one respect to say that there is no mention of pension issues in the document published this morning. It contains one fairly clear and straightforward proposal—although what elderly people will think of it, I do not know—to withdraw the subsidies on private health insurance for the elderly.
The other point on which I think the House and many people outside urgently need the hon. Gentleman's advice is that the biggest single saving in the package published this morning is the removal of what is described as the 2 per cent. personal pension incentive—that is, not the


ordinary, contracting-out rebate, but the additional reduction of 2 per cent. from the employees' national insurance contribution rate for those taking out personal pensions in the five years from 1988 to 1993.
The savings shown against that in the apparently carefully worked-out document published on behalf of the Labour party is more than £600 million, and makes up more than one third of the entire package. But that £600 million is not the saving from ending the incentive for new contracts from today, but the saving from tearing up the basis of all existing personal pensions—and it will be retrospective even beyond what that implies, because the refunds due to be paid in 1991–92 are payable in respect of the contributions made in the present year, which is now nearly over.
The proposal wrecks the basis of 4 million personal pensions, even to the point of withdrawing a legal entitlement that has already been gained. That involves one third of the savings presented in a package that is supposed to be balanced, and was published by Labour's economic team today. What does it mean?

Mr. Meacher: The right hon. Gentleman is really having to dredge the bottom of the barrel. He is inventing, fabricating and scaremongering. The £600 million figure does not affect the 2 per cent. "bribes", as we call them —the incentive bonuses that have already been given—but simply refers to future years. We believe that we should and will honour existing contracts—there is no question about that. But the Government had absolutely no right to spend £1·3 billion on bribing people to take up personal pensions when they froze child benefit. In future, we shall certainly end that unwarranted bribe.

Mr. Newton: It is clear that there is huge confusion between what the hon. Gentleman is saying and what his shadow Treasury friends are saying. This morning, they published a document that talks about the Labour party's revenue and expenditure proposals that "could and should" be adopted in the Budget. The document continues:
The proposals we make to raise revenue are: End the two per cent. personal pension 'incentive'".
That is £619 million, or one third of the saving in what purports to be a balanced package. Unless there is a huge hole in the calculations published this morning, that can only mean what I have suggested it does: either the hon. Member for Oldham, West or the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East should clear up matters much more than has been done in the past few minutes, because the proposals contain a direct threat to the interests of 4 million people who have taken out personal pensions.

Mr. Meacher: Mr. Speaker—[Laughter.] I think that Conservative Members will be laughing on the other side of their faces when I have finished what I am about to say.
The right hon. Gentleman complained that £600 million is more than the tax relief in terms of the bribe for one year. An answer given by the Department of Social Security on 6 March this year from the Parliamentary Under-Secretary, of which the Secretary of State seems totally unaware, makes it clear that incentives to schemes and personal pensions in 1989–90 totalled £0·6 billion.
That was exactly the figure that we estimated. The figure we used came from the Government, and I am amazed that the right hon. Gentleman is ignorant on his own figures.

Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman confirms totally, and in spades, my view that the Opposition collectively do not have the foggiest notion what they are doing. I am not quarrelling with the figure, but saying that to include it in the table means that it must be taken away from existing personal pension contracts that have already been entered into. If not, the table does not mean anything at all.

Mr. Meacher: It is for the future.

Mr. Newton: It does not say that it is for the future. It says that it should be adopted "in this Budget" and is part of a package that purports to be a balancing of the savings items and expenditure items that should be in the forthcoming Budget. Either the package does not add up, which seems highly likely from what we have seen before, or it can be made to add up only by attacking existing personal pension contracts, to the disadvantage of 4 million people. If the hon. Gentleman cannot clear it up now, I hope that his hon. Friend who is winding up for the Opposition will say more about it.

Mr. Meacher: I shall certainly clear the matter up now. The right hon. Gentleman is straining to make an extraordinarily bogus point. I have made it clear that we have used the Government's own figures. They had budgeted for the incentive bonus at a rate of £600 million a year up to 1993. We say that that money should not be used for that purpose. The point is simple, but it appears to be too complicated for the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman has totally missed my point. I did not query the figures—I queried the document produced by his right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Monklands, East. Perhaps it is significant that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is not a signatory to the motion. The document appears to make sense only if the personal pensions incentive to which the hon. Gentleman has referred, giving perfectly accurate figures, is withdrawn restrospectively. [Interruption.] Otherwise, the figures in the document do not make sense and are not worth the paper that they are written on.
So much for Labour's interest in pensioners. After all the rhetoric, all that the document published this morning contains is a proposal to do nothing whatever for existing pensioners and to remove something from prospective pensioners.
Some of my hon. Friends and the hon. Member for Oldham, West spoke about child benefit. What is Labour's precise proposal for the least well-off families with children, those who are on income support? The document published this morning says twice—the policy was accurately outlined by the hon. Member for Oldham, West —that the restoration of child benefit would give most help to low-income households. That document purports to contain a carefully worked out shadow Budget, but its costings show that families on income support would get precisely nothing because money would be totally clawed back.
Far from giving most help to low-income families, the proposal that is costed and published in the document would help everybody except the least well-off families on income support. That is supposed to be Labour's policy to combat poverty, if I may use the words of the motion.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: My right hon. Friend accurately describes Labour's proposals, and he knows that I disagree with them. The Labour party has changed its policy on child benefit, because it has removed £300 million from the commitment that it made in the last debate on child benefit. That is another matter that the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) did not bother to mention.

Mr. Newton: That is quite clear. It is also absolutely clear from the fact that the hon. Member for Oldham, West has not sought to intervene that, on this point as on the others, there are either holes in the document published this morning—or glaring differences between the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East and the hon. Member for Oldharn, West. The House and many people outside are owed an explanation about what is going on over the development and adumbration of Labour party policy. Manifestly, there are glaring inconsistencies. Perhaps we should seek to have the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East deliver the winding-up speech, so that he could explain on child benefit and on the other issues I have raised what he thinks has been included in his document, because it is quite different from what the hon. Member for Oldham, West has sought to describe as Labour policy.

Mr. Meacher: The hon. Gentleman has spent all his time attacking Labour and has made no attempt to defend his own policy. Ours is a carefully worked out Budget and nothing that the right hon. Gentleman has said has altered that by one iota. We shall increase child benefit by restoring what has been lost over the past four years and annually increasing it. That is in stark contrast to the Government's policy. The right hon. Gentleman spoke about people on income support. His argument about child maintenance is that it was an advantage for the mother to have some money from child maintenance even if that reduced pound for pound the income support that she received. It was argued that, if she managed to get into employment, that would provide a firmer base on which to extend her earnings. Exactly the same argument applies to child benefit.

Mr. Newton: It is as clear from that intervention as from the previous one that the hon. Gentleman is all over the place. It is said twice in identical words in this morning's Labour document that a restoration of child benefit, which is what the hon. Gentleman talks about, would give most help to low-income households. That is not qualified in any way. But the document's proposal for an increase in child benefit is costed to claw back the money from all those who are on income support. That proposal would do nothing for the least well-off families on income support. Will the increase in child benefit which the hon. Gentleman talks about be a gain to those on income support? The answer is that it will not.
The document talks about a policy that will give most help to low-income families, but the lowest-income families, those who are on income support, are totally excluded from any gain. [Interruption.] That means that the policy is not properly expressed in the document, and is thoroughly misleading. When it is widely realised that all this trumpeted stuff about child benefit entirely excludes the least well-off families, the hon. Member for Oldham, West may hear from some of his hon. Friends.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: The hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen), who spoke for the Labour party in the previous child benefit debate, is not in the Chamber. Is that because his shadow Treasury team has deducted £300 million from the commitment he gave in that previous debate?

Mr. Newton: That is absolutely right, and that is why the hon. Member for Oldham, West cannot answer the question. The hon. Gentleman thinks that an impression that all families would gain from his proposal and that lower-income families would gain most is trivial. It now turns out that those on income support would not gain at all, and that is not a trivial matter. The difference is £300 million, and many people will want an explanation for that.

Mr. Thurnham: Opposition Members are beginning to realise the difficulty in which they find themselves. In "Meet the Challenge, Make the Change" Labour said that it would more than make good the loss in value. However, the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) said that they would restore it to the 1979 level. Opposition promises are withering on the vine, and they now realise that they are talking nonsense. In a study carried out in 1989, the Institute for Fiscal Studies said:
simulations show that overwhelmingly the largest beneficiaries from an increase in Child and One-Parent Benefit would be family units in the middle and upper ranges. Those with net disposable incomes below £160 per week would gain very little.

Mr. Newton: Under the Labour party proposal, explained in the document issued this morning, least well-off families will gain nothing at all. That was not widely understood, and I am not entirely sure that those who published the document understood that they have stated either a policy that will give nothing to the least well-off or one with a £300 million hole in it. Taking this together with what I said about personal pensions earlier, my suspicion is that it has a £1 billion hole in it. It is typical of the Labour party's lack of credibility on a range of economic issues.
Because of these exchanges with the hon. Member for Oldham, West, I have taken rather——

Mr. Meacher: What about the terms of the motion?

Mr. Newton: The motion principally consists of statements about actions that the Labour party is recommending should be taken immediately to alleviate certain problems, including families in poverty. I am exploring the consistency between the motion and the speech of the hon. Gentleman, which conspicuously shied away from the second half of the motion, for reasons that have become clear.
The House and country need to know what the Labour party's policy is, whether the inconsistencies to which I have referred are clear, and whether the Opposition's policy for dealing with poverty, as described by the hon. Gentleman, is a policy from which the poorest are excluded. Unless he can tell us that I am wrong, for the hon. Gentleman to have tabled this motion last night, to have made the speech that he made this evening, and then to be forced to reveal that his policy does nothing for millions, certainly hundreds of thousands, of the least well-off families—those on income support—and with virtually no mention of pensioners, is something close to a disgrace. On that point, I rest my case.

Mr. Thomas Graham: In the debate we have heard what we often hear in such debates—many statistics and many facts showing the attack that has taken place on the families of Great Britain. I have a fundamental question. What is the role of the Government and of the House in dealing with the family? The Government have three jobs—to promote the values of decency and honesty, to nurture a healthy and buoyant economy and to create a fairer society by legislating fairly, on an equal basis, and justly.
The Tories were elected to Government in 1979 on the claim that they were the party of the family and that they would promote the values that would strengthen the family and nurture the economy even-handedly. What a fabrication that was—what a tissue of public relations gloss. No matter what lofty speeches we hear from Tory Members, either here or in the country, the people of my constituency and my family know the truth, because we live in the reality of the Government's many broken promises. The majority of families in my constituency struggle to make ends meet. Their struggle is made worse by cuts in benefit in real terms and the inadequate income support on which they are expected to live because of the curse of unemployment.
Older people have also been badly affected. Higher prices and lower incomes mean only one thing—living in poverty. The Government have denied older people a decent income and the dignity of independent living. More and more, older people are becoming dependent on their families. In turn, families can rely only on local government, and we know that local government has been attacked time and time again so that services have been cut.
I remember in 1979 one of the world's most famous housewives showing off with a bag of groceries. She would no longer be able to buy that bag of groceries—the shop would be shut because of bankruptcy. What she spent on that bag of groceries would probably only buy the plastic bag to put them in now, because of the Government's crazy economic policies.
The Government have inflicted the curse of unemploy-ment on millions over the past decade. The Secretary of State said that he was proud of the Government's record. Recently, I met elderly men and women in my constituency who were cursing the Government because of their lack of commitment to ensuring that people can heat their houses adequately during the winter. They were cursing the Prime Minister because of his lack of commitment to ensuring that the elderly in Scotland can cope with the terrible climate there.
I have spoken to men and women who are still waiting for a job 10 years after they were made unemployed. They know about poverty and unemployment. The Government should not try to kid these people, who are listening to the debate. I have never heard such a rowdy rabble as that on the Government Benches. I am shocked that, in a debate on such a serious subject, they are laughing, giggling, smirking and making hopelessly ignorant interventions. There is no hope for those living in poverty if they are treated so frivolously. Tory Members should hang their heads in shame. However, Tory Members have a chance to show people in poverty that they are interested in their fate. I am interested, as are many others, in hearing what the Government will do to help these people.
We are suffering from 10 years of disastrous economic policies and massively high interest rates. Mortgage repayment default is throwing young people on the streets. My local authority has queues of young men and women who can no longer afford to own their own homes. They took the Government's advice and bought their homes. They took up the right to buy. Now, because of the Government's economic policies and unemployment, they can no longer afford the mortgage repayments. They get help with the mortgage for only so long and then they have to decide between that and putting food into the bellies of their children. Unfortunately, the local authorities cannot provide accommodation for the homeless because the Government have cut resources to them.
The Secretary of State should not try to kid the folk in Strathclyde, which has one of the highest unemployment levels and one of the highest poverty levels in Europe. The Government claim credit for improving the quality of life, but they have destroyed it and are doing nothing. They are sitting there smirking and laughing all the way to the bank. Like those on the board of a bank, they will be made unemployed when, at the next general election, folk put a cross against the Government because of their terrible record. Their record is so bad that the past 10 years will be regarded as the worst decade for a long time. We have an inhumane, uncaring Government.
Many elderly men and women have died of hypothermia in recent weeks. People have been found dead in the streets because they have not had homes. There are people in Strathclyde who genuinely cannot afford to heat their homes because of the Government's economic policy. Many elderly people are struggling. Worse, the Government have even sent into the streets men and women who should have been cared for by social services departments. The Government have dumped the mentally handicapped and the mentally ill out of hospitals. Those people are struggling in society, with inadequate resources and help because of the inadequate funding of the services which they desperately need.
I feel sick at the flippant way in which some Conservative Members have treated the debate. It is fruitless to have a discussion in the House in the name of democracy because some hon. Members have insulted the integrity of the people. They have insulted the homeless, the unemployed, the disabled and the mentally handi-capped. I want an immediate general election to throw those folk on to the unemployed register. However, they would not suffer, because they would have a caring Labour Government to look after them.

Mr. Jerry Hayes: I shall not criticise the hon. Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mr. Graham) for what he said. I like the hon. Gentleman. No doubt I shall buy him a large Scotch later to boost the Scotch whisky industry. What he said he meant from the heart. I do not think that it came from the head, because the Government have nothing to be ashamed of in their policies.[Laughter.]
The hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) laughs loudly, but he has let the cat out of the bag. Not content with supporting Labour policy which robbed pensioners of £1·2 billion in the past, he does not quibble


about robbing them of over £600 million if his party gets into power. Those are the figures that we were talking about.
The hon. Gentleman has talked about what he would do with the private pensions industry. The private industry is not about fat cats in the City but about ordinary men and women who, for the first time, have had the opportunity to have portable pensions. They have been liberated. As the hon. Gentleman has said many times in the House and in newspapers, he intends to turn the private pensions industry on its head. He may wish to deny that, but it is on record.
We have heard some interesting things from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State about that incredible document, the shadow Chancellor's pledge. The hon. Member for Oldham has been unkindly accused of being the representative on earth of the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), but listening to the hon. Member for Oldham, West and his offerings on policy is like crossing a bicycle pump with a French poodle; no one knows what the result will be, but it does not half put the wind up the shadow Chancellor. The omission of pensioners—a major part of Labour party policy, as we are led to believe—is nothing short of disgraceful. Many people in my constituency who would have supported the hon. Gentleman and his party would be deeply ashamed to vote Labour.
Let us get to the facts and deal with some of the points that the hon. Gentleman made on low pay. He forgot to mention that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has a 20-point plan for the disabled. He forgot to mention that, since 1979, the budget for care in the community has been increased by 68 per cent. above inflation and that local government expenditure on personal social services has increased by 52 per cent. above inflation.
Let us get down to the nitty-gritty. The people most in need, the poorest 20 per cent. of working households, had a growth in real income of 11 per cent. between 1979 and 1987. The real take-home pay of a married couple with two children, on half average earnings, has increased by 24 per cent. since 1979, and the take-home pay of people on average earnings has increased by 30 per cent.
The hon. Gentleman forgets that we have spent £10 billion on family benefits since 1979, which is a 29 per cent. increase in real terms. It was brought to his attention, but he could not answer the charge that under the last Labour Government it was cut by 8 per cent. That is an appalling record.
We are not talking just about the appalling record of the last Labour Government. We want to know what the Labour party would do if in power. The hon. Gentleman has told us how he would totally ignore pensioners. We know that. He has been elusive about child benefit. I should remind the House what the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen), the junior Opposition social services spokesman, said in the House recently:
I shall say slowly, for the benefit of the hon. Gentleman, that the next Labour Government will return child benefit to its value when Labour was last in office."—[Official Report, 27 February 1991; Vol. 186, c. 1022.]
Where is the hon. Gentleman tonight? He is hiding in his bunker in Walworth road, no doubt, in fear of the hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett), the shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury. Many of the demands of

the hon. Member for Oldham, West have not been costed. The ones which have been costed amount to over £50 billion, which is completely unrealistic.
We know about income support and child benefit. The Conservative Government have deliberately targeted the people most in need, but if the Labour party had the opportunity, it could not do that. The hon. Gentleman knows what would happen. If there was uprating in line with inflation—the sort of thing which his former boss, Barbara Castle, did not want to happen—those most in need, the poorest families, would not get it. What have the Conservative Government done? We have introduced family credit. There has been a lot of pooh-poohing family credit, but hon. Members should not forget that it is paid into the purse of the mother, which is an important point.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: Does my hon. Friend agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher), who said in 1983, when child benefit reached record levels, that that demonstrated the Tory commit-ment to the family? Is not the argument for raising child benefit that it is the equivalent of a child allowance, but is better paid in cash than in tax? It may not be the way to help those on income support, but it is the right way to help those with children.

Mr. Hayes: I have spent the last eight years agreeing with my right hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher).
We have spent eight times more on family credit than was spent on family income supplement in 1979. The average family credit award is over £30 a week, which is three times more than the payment in 1979.
What is the great Labour policy? What will Labour do about children most in need? We know; it has been in the newspapers and it has even been said in the House. Labour will allow it to wither on the vine. Will the hon. Member for Oldham, West deny that? Have I misled the House in any way? Is that Labour policy? Will the hon. Gentleman allow it to wither on the vine? I shall happily give way if I am wrong. Am I right? It is not often that I am right; I am very pleased to be right on this occasion.
Here we have some wonderful Labour policies, and we shall have some wonderful taxes. We are going to have a tax on jobs which will cost employers about £1·5 billion. We are going to have a minimum wage which will cost the health service £500 million and throw thousands out of work. No doubt the minimum wage will appease the trade union paymasters of the hon. Member for Oldham, West, but it will not be good for employment and it certainly will not be good for the finances of the health service.
Let us get back to the vanguard of socialism today in this country, the places where socialist policies are really happening, the Labour councils. I would fail in my duty to the House and to the country if I did not mention Lambeth, God bless it. If Lambeth did not exist, Conservative Central Office would have to invent it. What has Lambeth done? Lambeth, that greatly caring and socialist council with the same sort of policies as the hon. Member for Oldham, West wants, has voted to withdraw rail and the tube passes from children attending schools outside the borough. Considering that about 50 per cent. of Lambeth children go to secondary schools in other boroughs, that is pretty disgraceful.

Mr. Jimmy Wray: Is the hon. Member for Harlow (Mr. Hayes) trying to defend this


Government? Does he not read the statistics? Does he not know that 22,500 people have had their homes repossessed? Does he not know that 95,000 people in Britain today are more than nine months in arrears with their mortgages? Does he not know that in Scotland 16,000 people had their electricity cut off? This is the kind of thing that the hon. Member should be speaking about because his Government put us in this mess.

Mr. Hayes: I am grateful for the helpful intervention of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Wray) because I was going to tell the House that since 1988 we have spent an extra £400 million a year in real terms on low-income families. I was going to tell the House that basic tax allowances have been increased by 25 per cent. since 1979. People are doing an awful lot better, despite the economic difficulties, than ever they were. Of course I regret the enormous problems of the 45,000 or so people who have lost their homes, but we are talking about 98·3 per cent. of all families who are in no serious difficulty with their arrears, and it is the job of the Government to do what they can to help.
I cannot remember whether it was lain MacLeod or Winston Churchill who said that Conservatism was about giving people the ladders of opportunity and providing the nets to catch them. This is a time when we need those nets and it is the duty of the Government—they have been doing it as well as possible, subject to resource constraints —to make sure that the holes in the net are not so large as to allow many people to slip through. That is what Conservatism is all about.
Let me return to what I was saying about Lambeth council. I do not think that many Opposition Members went to hear about it.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: There are not many of them there.

Mr. Hayes: I agree with my hon. Friend.
Let us just go back to Lambeth council and what the chief executive said:
Some of the local customers are so frustrated with the services they are provided with—but sometimes never receive —and with the corruptness of the administrative systems that they feel compelled to resort to threats and acts of intimidation against it".
Is that really the sort of family policy that the Labour party will offer to the House and the country when eventually we go to the country at the general election?
We have been told that it is the wicked poll tax that is responsible for all these ills, but it is important that these facts come out:
Even if the Labour party wins a general election no one … can have any illusions that an incoming Labour government is the cavalry riding to the Council's rescue. It is more than clear that no additional resources would be available",
says Joan Twelves, the council leader.
Let us turn to Liverpool. God bless Liverpool. What does Councillor Keva Coombes say about Liverpool? About education—another great priority, just as a lot of things seem to be a priority for the Labour party just before an election—Mr. Coombes said that it was in a parlous state. He conceded that the Labour-run council was
the worst landlord in Liverpool, probably in the country".

This is the case for socialism that people are getting in Liverpool, in Lambeth and in Harlow——

Mr. Jimmy Hood: What is the hon. Gentleman's majority?

Mr. Hayes: I have a healthy majority; it goes up all the time when people hear what is on offer from Labour. We have been given a community charge by left-wing Harlow of £459, despite the fact that Essex county council is below the standard spending assessment of £49 million. Harlow could have reduced the community charge by £42. A competent authority would have kept the charge at £338, but Harlow has taken money from the reserve—this will bankrupt the town in the next two years—of £118 per person; and the people who will suffer in Harlow are the elderly, the disabled—those most at risk.
How is it, when one hears from Lambeth and these other overspending authorities, that it is not the women's units, the public relations or the local government units that suffer, but education and housing, the most politically sensitive areas? It is the most wicked and cynical manipulation of the frail and the infirm that I have ever seen. That is why I am happy to support my right hon. Friend and his Front-Bench team. I do not pretend that it is easy or that we have all the answers, but we are on the way to some of the solutions, and at least we have the courage to admit the limitations and to put forward the plans that my right hon. Friend has mentioned this evening.

Mr. Archy Kirkwood: I am a bit diffident about straying into the party political flak that is flying all over the place. Listening to the insults that have been traded, one would be inclined to think that a general election was around the corner. I want to rise above all that if I can.
I agree with the hon. Member for Harlow (Mr. Hayes) in this respect at least; these questions are not easy, and we must remember that there are intractable problems and that they are not all related to maintenance, income support and pensions. The problems which confront low-income families cover a range of public policy sectors that we ought to examine, and I should like to spend a moment or two discussing some of them.
I preface my remarks by saying that the Government should adopt a budget strategy to assist family hardship, and to that extent I support the thrust of the Labour motion. But the Secretary of State won on points by quite a large margin when it came to his questions about the second part of the motion, and if we decide to support the official Opposition in the Lobbies later I make it clear that it will be because of the intention behind the stated objects of the motion; I think that the jury is still substantially out on the sums that Opposition Members have produced.
The Government have been in power for a long time and, as someone said recently, they have few alibis left. If they have not been able to use their time constructively to improve matters, particularly for families in hardship, they have no one to blame but themselves. We can quote statistics until we are blue in the face, but the evidence is that, since the Government have been in office, the poor have done relatively worse and the rich have done relatively better.
It is all very well for the Secretary of State to be clever —I do not mean that pejoratively; he was right to scrutinise the Opposition policies—but it is difficult for Opposition parties to produce policies, particularly financial plans in great detail, when the Government are sitting on top of all the information and statistics that they need. I would not go so far as to make some of the promises that have been made by the official Opposition, but it is right for the Opposition parties to state the targets that they intend to aim for over a reasonable time in the next Parliament.
The Secretary of State was a bit unkind to prosecute his argument to the extent that he did. However, he put some valid questions, and no doubt when he gets a copy of the Budget proposals that the Liberal Democrats produced earlier today, he will be asking me some of the same questions.

Mr. Newton: It is not all that difficult to ask Governments parliamentary questions to elicit informa-tion; quite a lot of them have been asked. What was interesting about the exchanges with the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) was that, when I made the point that the shadow Treasury document published today, apparently carefully costed, has costed a proposal which does nothing for the least well-off families, the hon. Gentleman was unable either to deny that or even to say that that was not the intention. He left the impression that it was.

Mr. Kirkwood: The hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) can speak for himself. I listened with interest to the exchanges, and I shall study the report of the debate.
It is necessary to recognise that there have been substantial social changes. The hon. Members for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) and for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) and I attended an interesting Children's Society seminar which focused on the needs of children. I found it valuable, because it made me give a lot more thought to how a Liberal Democrat Government would try to focus on the needs of children.
Many different strands can be introduced and adduced in any policy that is brought to bear on the problem. As the hon. Member for Harlow said, it is difficult to decide how much the state should interfere in the private domestic domain of the family. There are difficult questions about how women, with their changing role, should be supported by child care policies and policies which make it easier for them to become an integral part of the new, largely service-oriented economy with part-time work and job sharing. All those matters are apposite in terms of giving real help to families suffering hardship.
We must also recognise that the family unit has changed substantially. That was brought home to me during discussions at the children's forum last week. There is now no such thing as the traditional family. There are step-families and single-parent families. In my constituency a high proportion of families consist of elderly people and ladies who have their own problems. The panoply of policy that the Government bring to bear on such questions must go with the grain of some of those changes.
One point that I made at the forum last week is that Governments find it difficult to co-ordinate policy, particularly in relation to children and families suffering

hardship because of the disjointed approach that we adopt to try to tackle poverty within the family. That has been true of all Governments.
Poverty within the family embraces a series of things. For example, one of the most positive things that we could do to help some low-income families would be to increase the support that we give to conciliation services. Family breakdowns cost the state a lot of money, and if we put resources into giving families teetering on the brink of breakdown advice and conciliation, they may be saved. That might be the most positive way in which to help them. Local authorities, voluntary bodies and some specialist charities have an important role to play in that.
Those are all matters outwith the Secretary of State's responsibilities, but Governments must recognise that we need to go beyond social security levels and consider debt advice, the valuable work of citizens advice bureaux and counselling and family planning services. All those services have a bearing on how we can provide support, financial and otherwise, to families who are suffering hardship.
I do not think that one can consider hardship properly without taking into account long-term education policy. Sensible, planned provision for the under-fives would give future generations a better chance of gaining independence —the independence about which we hear so much from the Government—and exercising choice. I agree that opportunities should be provided, but many families are simply unable to take advantage of them. Education is a part of the problem. So is housing. Members of Parliament, at their constituency surgeries, hear about dampness, overcrowding, and so on. Then there is the question of health policy. People need dietary and other preventive health advice. They need advice about life styles. All of these things are the proper function of government. Families who suffer hardship must get proper educational support.
I know that there have been interdepartmental committees dealing with women's issues and with some children's issues. I support what has been done, so far as it goes. However, I hope that the Social Security Ministers will not confine their view to issues that are the responsibility of their own Department but will encourage a more interdepartmental approach. I know that they have their problems, but I hope that they will do what they can to ensure that low-income families get all the assistance that they need.
There is a real need for a proper partnership with the voluntary sector. I do not mean that charities should be used to provide a back-up for the social fund; that would be inappropriate. However, some of the specialist charities in the voluntary sector have expert resources. Indeed, I have seen some very useful local authority initiatives also. In addition, some employers have very enlightened policies for child care and support for low-income families. The Government—particularly the Ministers in the Department of Social Security—should take a lead in the provision of a framework of support, in partnership with all the elements involved. I know that that will not be easy, but we should all be neglecting our duty if we were not to try a bit harder in that direction.
Prolonged poverty is inimical to family life. That, of course, is a statement of the obvious. We can argue about what constitutes relative poverty, and what constitutes absolute poverty. We can argue about whether the Government are doing enough. Opposition parties will always ask for more. However, some worrying trends are


emerging. The next Government, from whatever party, will have difficulties if they do not face up to the lack of provision for low-income families, among other things. Child benefit and child care should be essential elements of the programme for the next five or 10 years.
I hope that, in the next general election campaign, there will be proper public discussion of the role of child benefit. This is a cross-party issue. The debate about it will be important, and I hope that it will be conducted in the open. As I said in a previous debate, I hope that manifestos will be explicit about what parties are seeking to achieve. Of course, parties can be criticised for trying to go too far. We need an open, proper debate so that the electorate may have some say.
I am very worried about the resourcing of community care. Up to now, I have been referring especially to children, but community care will be essential to elderly people. If proper provision is not made, there will be major problems. I am very worried about some health board trends. I am not against savings, but the health board in my area is trying to make savings that will simply result in geriatric care being offloaded in a fairly wholesale way to the private residential and voluntary sectors of nursing homes. I have nothing against mixed provision of residential care, but it is quite wrong for health boards suddenly to decide that it is no longer their responsibility to provide geriatric care. I hope that Ministers are aware of that. It will have a vast implication for the Department of Social Security budget.
I know, as well as anyone knows, that the Secretary of State has to go to the Treasury and fight his corner for money. If that trend in my constituency begins to emerge across the whole United Kingdom, the Secretary of State will have an increasingly difficult job in containing that demand-led aspect of the budget. He will have to make cuts in other areas, and that will not be in anybody's interests. I hope that he will urgently consider that. If it is happening in a relatively stable, out-of-the-way place like my constituency, goodness knows what the extent of the problem would be in urban areas.
I hope that the Secretary of State will reconsider the changes in the 1986 Act that led to a cut in provision for 16 and 17-year-olds. I accept that the Government of the day must be careful not to tempt youngsters away from families and towards streets paved with gold in London. However, the experience and the evidence show that 16 and 17-year-olds who are genuinely within a stressful family relationship leave home and go into destitution and, even worse, prostitution. I hope that that aspect of the 1986 reforms will be urgently reviewed.
The figures for homelessness and repossessions have been mentioned, and they pose an increasing worry. I am concerned about the number of people in Scotland who suffer deductions from their income support because, for example, they are in arrears with their community charge, are making social fund repayments, or are directly receiving fuel. The Government must be careful to ensure that they do not assume that everybody has the maximum income support available. In November 1990, 17,500 people in Scotland were in poll tax arrears and were not in receipt of full income support.
I am concerned about the 5,000 people sleeping rough. The Government have shown welcome signs of trying to reduce the number, but I am still worried. I am sure that my concern is not unique.
I hope that the Secretary of State recognises that Governments, of whichever party, must take into account the changing complexion of the family. As a policy-making institution, the Government should try to work with the grain of that and not moralise or impose rather spurious and out-of-date judgments. We need a better, more co-ordinated approach to all aspects of family policy.
I have tried to advance one or two ideas about ways in which I think matters could be improved. To achieve a concerted and co-ordinated approach, we need more resources. I hope that the issue will be tested seriously at the next general election. I believe that people throughout the country would be prepared to pay a reasonable amount more if they felt that that would result in a fairer and better collective provision for low-income families.

Mr. Peter Thurnham: The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) said that he would try to lift the tone of the debate. Indeed, the speeches of Opposition Members have improved as we have gone along. The opening speech by the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) was pathetic, yet he has had enormous experience both in office and on the Opposition Front Bench. The hon. Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mr. Graham) made a heavyweight speech, and he referred to unemployment on the Clyde. Perhaps the Opposition should promote him to the Front Bench; they obviously need a speaker with his power of oratory.
I agree with many of the points made by the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire and especially with his comment about wanting a more co-ordinated approach to family policy and lifestyle advice.
A survey published today showed that 10 per cent. of 16 to 19-year-old girls are sexually active and do not use contraceptives. That is the beginning of later problems, because if teenage pregnancies result, they either end in the tragedy of an abortion or in an unplanned pregnancy leading to an unplanned child, which will too often result in family poverty. Therefore, the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire was right to mention the issue.
I stress to my right hon. Friend the Minister the need for the Government to monitor what is happening. Figures show that there are as many as 1 million unplanned pregnancies—one in three pregnancies—every year in this country. We must monitor that and find out to what extent Government policy can help to reduce the number because no one wants that level.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: I hope that people following this debate will not take that figure as correct. The number of live births is about 600,000 or 700,000 and there are about 150,000 abortions and there are also spontaneous miscarriages. Therefore, I think that there must be something slightly wrong with my right hon. Friend's assumption.

Mr. Thurnham: I am grateful to my hon. Friend; he was right to correct me. According to the figures that I have


seen, 1 million women are at risk of unplanned pregnancy, and there are about 300,000 unplanned pregnancies during a year, half of which end in abortion—about 150,000 or 160,000 each year. Therefore, 150,000 or 160,000 children would be born, suggesting that at least one in five children born is the result of an unplanned pregnancy. No one wants that state of affairs.
I agree with the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire that we should start by considering that aspect of family life in this debate.
I find Labour's policies amazing. I have already quoted the conclusion of the Institute for Fiscal Studies that child benefit is not efficient. However, I see that early-day motion 582, which has attracted 160 signatures from the Opposition Benches, states:
child benefit is the most efficient form of financial support for families with children".
I do not understand how one can come to that conclusion when, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said in his opening speech, that does not help families with the lowest incomes. The Opposition were unable to answer that argument and were unable to say how they could help such families. That is why the Opposition are beginning to climb down from saying that they will more than make good the value of child benefit. More recently, they said that they would "at least" make it good and more recently still that they will simply make it good. They realise that child benefit is not getting anywhere.
What most disappoints me about the Opposition is the fact that they do not seem able to support family credit. The Government have boosted family credit, enormously —there has been an eightfold increase in the amount of money spent on it. Yet the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) has said, as we have already heard, that Labour would let family credit wither on the vine and would introduce a national minimum wage instead. Barbara Castle has already been quoted as the Minister who froze child benefit in 1975. As Secretary of State for Employment, she said that she would not introduce a national minimum wage because of its effect on regional unemployment. Why is the Labour party advocating policies that it would not implement when it was in power?
It grieves me that the Opposition should turn their backs on family credit, when that is exactly the sort of policy that leads to targeted benefits. The hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) said that child benefit is not the most sensible way to distribute extra money. In that case, the most sensible way must be family credit. Will my hon. Friend consider the conclusions in the National Audit Office's study on family credit distribution? Family credit is not fully taken up. It is an excellent scheme, yet figures published in the study a few weeks ago showed that, by caseload, only 50 per cent. of it was taken up and, by expenditure, only 65 per cent. Therefore, there must be a considerable number of families who can still benefit from family credit and we should do our utmost to get them to take up that benefit.
That is the correct policy and the right way to help. One should encourage people to earn the most from their jobs that they can, and supplement their income where necessary to meet their family requirements. That is what should be done, rather than spread universal benefits around. We would much prefer to target benefits and reduce income tax, to make the economy stronger and to increase take-home pay.
That does not mean that the wealthiest would make the smallest contribution. The top 10 per cent. of taxpayers contribute 42 per cent. of total tax now, compared with 35 per cent. 10 years ago. Conservative Governments have increased the proportion of tax paid by the wealthy, and reduced that payable by everyone else from the exorbitant levels that existed under Labour.
The Opposition have not made it clear how they would fund their commitments. Where is the £1·5 billion more that they propose putting into child benefit to come from? If it is to be generated by increased taxes, who is to pay them? I have not yet seen the shadow Budget that was published today, but judging from the remarks of my right hon. Friend, it does not add up. Does it make it clear what tax levels would be under Labour, and whether there will be a return to the horrendous levels that operated under Labour?
I would like the family credit scheme to be considerably expanded. If additional funds are available, perhaps that is the area to which they should be applied. The National Audit Office made three recommendations. The first was that the Department should improve the nature and extent of the advice given to income support claimants about family credit. The system works better than it did, but there is scope for further improvement.
The NAO's second recommendation was that the advice and information given to ethnic minorities about income support and family credit should be reviewed. I know from my constituency experience that there is high unemployment among ethnic minorities, and that they tend to have larger families. On both counts, they are in need of more guidance on how to benefit from family credit.
The National Audit Office's third recommendation was that the reason why families move into and out of entitlement to income support and family credit should be examined, to establish whether there is scope to improve the effectiveness of the schemes' work incentives. That apart, family credit is an enormous improvement on family income support. The Government are paying out much more, and that money is reaching many more families than before. In overall terms, the scheme is a success, but I should like to see it implemented more fully. The Government's policies deserve the support of us all in the Lobby tonight.

Miss Joan Lestor: I will focus on a narrow aspect of family poverty, and one that the Government always ignore. It is a pity that, when efforts are made to identify areas of poverty, the Government constantly skirt round the disadvantaged and point only to groups that have enjoyed some improvements under their schemes.
Last week, the Low Pay Unit and Birmingham education authority released a report that highlights the exploitation of thousands of children who are working illegally, and The People presented disclosures by Danny Buckland, who managed to infiltrate a Norfolk factory with a photographer, to present pictorially a report on the exploitation of children in 1991, under a Conservative Government.
The Government have been in power for nearly 12 years. To many of us, it seems much longer. Some of the children highlighted in the Low Pay Unit report were not even born when the Conservatives took office. According


to the Low Pay Unit and Birmingham education authority, the reason for that exploitation is family poverty.
I do not have time to describe the report in detail, but I hope that Ministers have read it. It shows that, in the areas that suffer the highest unemployment, greatest poverty, and worst low pay, more and more children are becoming the family breadwinners. That point has been raised before, but the Government have not dealt with the problem of long-term truancy among children or the fact that many children are working in appalling conditions. The legislation that protected those children, such as it was, has been done away with. The Government constantly refuse to implement the Employment of Children Act 1973. The Under-Secretary of State for Social Security said that if there was any evidence that it should be implemented, she would consider it. The evidence is before her, but the Government have done nothing.
There are 4 million secondary school-aged children in Britain today and 2 million of them work. According to the survey, three out of four of those children are employed illegally. They are at risk of economic exploitation. They also face physical risks and colossal educational disadvantage.
According to the survey, 43 per cent. of the children had some kind of job excluding baby sitting, running errands and walking the dog. Many of them had more than one job. One 11-year-old had five jobs: a paper round, helping with a milk round, working in a clothes shop, helping with furniture removals and working in a take away restaurant. He earned 50p an hour for 10 hours work. That is the position after almost 12 years of Conservative Government. That is the poverty that our children are experiencing.
One third of the children's jobs involve shop work, cleaning and factory work and they accounted for more than the number of paper rounds. The law states that no child under 13 should work. One quarter of the working children referred to in the survey were 10, 11 or 12 years old. The law also states that children should not work for more than two hours on a school day and not before 7 am or after 7 pm in the case of 13-year-olds. Many of the children work far longer hours than that. Many of them perform adult jobs for less pay. The average pay is £1·80 an hour.
One 12-year-old worked in a sweet shop for 18 hours a week and was paid 44p an hour. The adult minimum wage is £2·20 an hour. The survey found that one third of the children were involved in accidents at work, including cuts, burns, assaults and broken bones. Three 15-year-olds received serious injuries in agriculture; six 15-year-olds in manufacturing industries; seven 15-year-olds in the service industries; and two 15-year-olds in unclassified jobs. In addition, a 13-year-old and a 14-year-old were involved in major accidents in other forms of agriculture. In comparison with that saga of accidents involving youngsters, many of whom were working illegally, the number of court cases and convictions is pitiful.
That is one of the biggest indictments of the Government. We have heard reports of children working as the sole carer of a dependant relative. There are reports of children sleeping in our streets. Hundreds of our

children are in bed-and-breakfast accommodation and hundreds more are on at-risk registers, but they do not have social workers attached to them.
There is also now a growing saga of children who are employed illegally, many of whom are trying to top up an inadequate family income, or working as the sole contributor and breadwinner in a family that has experienced years of long-term unemployment affecting the mother, father and the other children. That is what is happening in our society today, as revealed in the survey which interviewed nearly 2,000 children between 10 and 16 split evenly between boys and girls.
I am glad that Conservative Members have not laughed at my speech. This will have been only the second speech at which they have not laughed, although I am sure that one of them will do so before long.
I have made a serious indictment of a Government who claim to care about children and about people, but who allow our children to work illegally and deny to those who work with some semblance of legality any protection in terms of the legislation that they took from the statute book.

Miss Emma Nicholson: Earlier my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State was kind enough to allow me to intervene, when I talked about the track record of Barbara Castle, who introduced child benefit. I am sure that she meant what she said most sincerely. I quote her freely, because I do not have her exact words in front of me. She made the point that the key advantage of the introduction of child benefit was that it would benefit poorer families. Her exact words were that poorer families would receive a greater proportion of the money.
I do not understand how the right hon. Lady, who is now in the other place, could possibly have had that idea. Surely it is clear to hon. Members, regardless of which side of the House they are on, that the great weakness of universal benefits is that they spread the butter thinly— they give exactly the same to everybody irrespective of income, ability to pay, and, even worse, need.
Earlier today, Her Majesty's Opposition attacked the community charge and supported other measures, but they support universality as a concept embedded in their deepest commitment, particularly to child benefit.
I am more than keenly interested in the welfare of children. I was fortunate to spend a dozen years working as a full-time senior staff member of the Save the Children Fund. Fortunately, in my position as a Conservative Back-Bencher, I have sufficient time to be able to devote my spare hours to furthering the welfare of children in the United Kingdom in a variety of ways and through a number of voluntary organisations—46 at the latest count. I know that the Government's perception of need for children is the better one, given that family credit now supplements child benefit. I shall paint the picture in a slightly different way so that Her Majesty's Opposition can understand my perspective in this matter.
Child benefit goes to every child—or rather, through every mother, it is given for the benefit of every child in the United Kingdom. I make that point perhaps a little critically, because many mothers do not use child benefit for their children. Many cases have been identified and written up. Letters are written to women's magazines from


families on quite modest incomes, saying that they do not use child benefit for their children. I refer to magazines such as Woman's Own and Woman's Realm—the ordinary, common or garden women's magazines that many millions of women read every week. I have seen letters from someone who feels embarrassed at having child benefit when she does not use it for her children.
There are 6·8 million families with children in the United Kingdom, and that makes 12·2 million children. All of them receive child benefit at £7·25 per child per week. However, among those 12·2 million children, 3 million are in greatest need. That is the bottom group—a quarter of all children in the United Kingdom. It is interesting that that quarter comes from 1·5 million of the totality of 6·8 million families. In a word, a quarter of the children belong to a sixth of the families. Quite naturally, we see that families in receipt of family credit a re the poorest and also have the largest families. That is why I so heartily supported the recent uplift in child benefit of £1 for the eldest child. The larger families will need that money to invest in children' s clothing at the beginning of their family life.
I have seen the benefit of family credit, as opposed to the uplift of child benefit nationally through the universality of everyone having the same, in my constituency where many families are on lower incomes. Farm workers have never been well paid—I wish they had. Many farmers do not have a large income, and other groups also receive family credit. I have seen that family credit gives real value to those families. It allows them to budget and to plan. It gives them sufficient funds to enable them to stand on their own feet and to start to involve themselves in the wider world.
That is why, although I welcome any help that is given to children, I especially support the targeting—that modern word—of families who are in real need. I welcome the Government's commitment to the poorest children in the land by continuing to uplift family credit.

Mrs. Sylvia Heal (Mid-Staffordshire): The Government came to power on the promise of prosperity for everyone. People expected to have more money in their pockets, a home of their own, a secure job, and better prospects for their children in schools and universities. But the reality for many has been a treacherous breach of the hopes and plans that the British people had invested in the Government for the 1980s and on the basis of which they were voted into power.
Since 1979, the poor have become poorer. About one fifth of the population have been made worse off during the past decade. Not for them the benefit of a trickle-down effect from the growing prosperity of the few. We have heard that it is Conservative policy for that party to project itself as the party of the family. Quite apart from the economic and political consequences of the Government's policies, we must consider the more personal effects that relate to nearly every family in the land and what has really happened to many families in the time that the Government have been in office.
Grandparents now receive a state pension that is no longer linked to average earnings or increased prices, so they are worse off. According to Age Concern, more than one third of retired people are living on or below the poverty line. Many are constantly worried about heating

their homes, paying their bills and having enough to feed themselves. They are often faced with deciding whether they can afford to buy a relative or friend a birthday card or whether they should spend that money on a loaf of bread or half a dozen eggs.
Many people in their 70s and 80s find it impossible to survive on their basic pension and have to work part-time to supplement it. The jobs on which many pensioners rely to boost their weekly income are often the first to go when the recession bites. I refer to the pensioners who may have a part-time cleaning job in a shop or office.
Fathers who were once in secure jobs have found themselves unemployed. Many are facing unemployment for the first time. If they have a skill or professional training, they did not expect that unemployment would happen to them. Unemployment brings humiliation and loss of confidence, as well as financial problems, which in turn can mean stress and tension within a marriage and within the family unit.
Many women work part-time outside the home so that they can combine employment and family responsibilities. Many women who have been employed in banking or by the building societies, both of which are large employers of women, have been made redundant. Women who work in teaching, the service sector or as helps in the schools meals service are facing reduced hours or job losses as a result of the recession or they have been the victims of cuts, which are due in large measure to the poll tax.
Young people searching for jobs are often sidetracked into the so-called training schemes which are often no more than a parody of the real thing. They receive little more than subsistence rates as a training allowance. Teenagers who have to leave home—not from choice, but because there is no work locally—may obtain work but they then have to pay a high price for accommodation, and their poll tax. They may join the many young people who are sleeping in cardboard city, begging on our streets, or turning to prostitution. Unemployment and changes in the benefit rules are the factors which contribute to that.
A further consequence of the recession and its impact on families is the increase in the workload of citizens advice bureaux. Advice on money problems is now the main and growing work of CABs in my constituency. In one of those offices, bankruptcy-related inquiries during January and February were as many as two or three a week. Many of them were from people who were made redundant and who had put what capital they had into a small business. They now face further problems. When the sign says, "Everything must go", it means just that—it means the family business and the family income.
The people who seek advice at CABs often have multiple debt problems, not because they have overcom-mitted themselves but because of a change in circumstances. In many cases, that change of circumstan-ces is unemployment. That in turn leads to mortgage problems. Again, mortgage problems arise either from unemployment or from a reduction in working hours.
In some families, both husband and wife have lost their jobs and the impact on the family is devastating. As a result of the state of the economy, many unemployed people, having tried to find work and written perhaps 50 or 100 letters, are giving up hope. Many families face the grim struggle to pay the mortgage, rent, poll tax and increased prices for the now privatised water, gas and electricity, as well as the weekly food bill. New clothes, meals out and entertainment are luxuries that many


families cannot afford. I have spoken to families who say not only that they cannot afford new clothes but that they can no longer afford to buy clothes from the charity shops; they are reduced to going to jumble sales.
Community furniture projects have great demand for their furniture because people cannot obtain the additional money that they want from the social fund to replace items of furniture. The magic spell of prosperity has been broken at last. Few people still believe that we can become a nation of rich and happy shareholders. If we were to apply the same testing to the Government's policy on the family as they are imposing on children in schools, there is no doubt what the teacher's comment would be:
Failed. Could do better.
The family as a single, cohesive factor in contemporary Britain has been subjected to unprecedented pressures which in turn have created more social discord than we have had in any period since the 1930s.

Ms. Jo Richardson: In the few minutes left for the Front-Bench replies, I wish to make a few references first to the speeches which have been made in the debate. The speeches of my hon. Friends reflected their anxieties about the bitter plight of families on low incomes living in their constituencies. The anger expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mr. Graham) and the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mrs. Heal) contrasted starkly with the levity of the speech of the hon. Member for Harlow (Mr. Hayes), who seemed to think that it was all a great joke. The moving speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles (Miss Lestor), which brought a new dimension to the debate, will be worth reading.
The spread of poverty has become absolutely relentless and its growth is a savage indictment of the Government. Far from creating new jobs, they have presided over a tripling of unemployment and a shift in the nature of employment towards temporary, casual and part-time work which is low-paid. Far from widening real opportunities for lasting home ownership, the Government have encouraged families to buy their homes. Those families were then forced by the Government's high interest rates policy into arrears and into losing their homes. It is a crazy situation.
In 1989, 83,682 mortgage payers were taken to court. That was a bad enough figure, but in 1990, more than 136,000 faced court action for mortgage areas. The biggest increases in the past year have been in the midlands, the south-east and the south-west—unusual spots for that to happen. At the same time, local authority home building has been at a standstill, and homelessness and housing waiting lists have been at an all-time high. Privately rented property is far too expensive for most families whose homes have been repossessed. There is no doubt that the current recession will lead to even further increases in the number of families in poverty, yet the Government show no sign of tackling the recession and, to judge by their amendment tonight, they have no conception of the misery that their policies are causing.
Even if the Chancellor could wave a magic wand to pull the country out of recession overnight, he would not and could not undo the damage now being wrought. A magic

wand would not restore the homes of those people who have been evicted today, return the furniture to homes with bailiffs on the doorsteps today or repair the lungs of children living in damp houses today. Anyway, the Chancellor will not wave a magic wand, but will continue to pursue the disastrous policies that have led to such an appalling increase in hardship.
Hardship affects every member of the family; all are hit by it, but women and children bear the brunt. The lack of child care, to which the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) referred, means that women have less access to available jobs. That problem particularly affects single parents—76 per cent. of whom live in poverty, compared with 13 per cent. of two-parent families. Women form the vast majority of lone parents. Some 96 per cent. of single parents on income support are women and 71 per cent. of those on low wages are women.
Women's lives are very much shaped by their domestic responsibilities. The vast amount of unpaid work that women have to do—including child care, cleaning, shopping and managing the home—limits their oppor-tunities to obtain paid work. During the past decade, the Government have done nothing to help them.
The Government are fond of pointing out at every opportunity the increase in part-time jobs, but they have done nothing to ensure that those jobs provide maternity rights, sick pay and holidays, or that part-time work is paid pro rata to full-time work. Because their pattern of paid work is so broken up by their caring responsibilities —whether for children or elderly dependents—many women fail to pay enough national insurance contribu-tions to qualify for a full pension, so when they become older and retire, they do not have enough to live on and have to resort to income support.
Even within the family, the resources are not always fairly shared, although that is not necessarily the Government's fault. It is very often the woman in the family—the mother—who spends more of what might be considered the equal half of the family income on items such as food and clothing. That is why child benefit is, and is seen to be, so important to families. It is a disgrace that child benefit has been frozen for so long.
As the hon. Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson) said, the Chancellor will at last be increasing child benefit not to £9·55 a week—which it should be for each child—but by a miserly £1 for the eldest child. Have Conservative Members any idea of how much that will help a family? The sum of £1 might just buy a large family loaf and some margarine, but not much more—there will be no change out of a pound. That figure will not buy any socks or shoes, although it might buy three pints of milk—big deal. It is so insultingly low that it causes more stress. The Chancellor has made a mistake by not increasing child benefit to the requisite amount.
The hardship about which we have heard in the debate has been the lot of many families for more than a decade and over the lifetime of successive Governments, no positive policy to help such families has been developed. Tory politicians often talk about a sort of north-south divide. They say that there is more poverty in the north, rather as if families there should have become used to being poverty-stricken. They say that the "good old south of England" does well and that there is no need for a strategy to eliminate poverty and hardship there.
Now the recession has hit the south with a vengeance. Families in the south, stunned by steep mortgage interest


rates, are losing their homes. They are getting into debt and losing their jobs as 100 firms a day are declared bankrupt. Two-earner families become one-earner or no-earner families. Those people were brought up under a Government who have no proper policies to deal with hardship and bring down inflation. Such families will join those who have been suffering for the past decade in realising that Britain must have a Labour Government who will begin to tackle the ills and evils of a decade of Tory policies. The general election campaign should start tomorrow.

The Minister for Social Security and Disabled People (Mr. Nicholas Scott): So far, the debate has been a one-sided match. I do not know whether I shall be able to sustain that record. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security ate the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) alive. We have clearly won the argument. The Opposition chose this subject for debate, so it is somewhat surprising that the Opposition turnout has been so miserable. Their arguments have been equally weak.
I have great respect for the hon. Member for Eccles (Miss Lestor) and I think that we entered the House on the same date. She spoke seriously about the exploitation of children, and she will know that local authorities have considerable responsibilities for children who work. I took a careful note of her points, and will instigate some investigations into the extent of the practice reported in one of the popular Sunday newspapers. I take the matter seriously, and certainly do not dismiss it for a moment.
The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) also made a serious speech—about the need for services as well as benefits, the level of which dominated the debate. We are not speaking just about services by statutory bodies, such as local authorities or the Department in which I serve, but about those provided by the voluntary organisations that the hon. Gentleman mentioned. Those are the citizens advice bureaux, Relate, which helps those in matrimonial difficulties, and other organisations which make a great contribution to enabling people to retain, and sometimes to improve, their quality of life.
The hon. Gentleman spoke about a matter that was first identified by the noble Lord Joseph—the danger of families in poverty entering a cycle of deprivation. Such families do not benefit from the education system and are ill served by many of the statutory bodies. In some way, we must break through to those families, and voluntary agencies can play a great part in that. Although my Department has no grant-giving power, the Department of Health spends a considerable amount of money, through its section 64 grants, on the voluntary bodies. This plays an important part in supporting such organisations and helping those who benefit from them.

Mr. Graham: Is the Minister aware that, in Scotland, many of the voluntary organisations that deal with the problems of poverty have seen their funding eradicated because of local government finance cuts, so much so that they are no longer able to carry out the valuable work that they have done for years to ensure that people get the benefits due to them?

Mr. Scott: Most of the local authorities controlled by the Labour party put supporting fancy left-wing ideas ahead of the priorities about which I have been talking.
I shall try to reply to the points made in the debate. The hon. Member for Oldham, West made the worst speech that I have ever heard him make. He has visited—we have been glad to enable him to do so—many of our local social security offices, and has gained some understanding of the efforts that we put in to delivering a better service to those who need our help. He will know that, on 1 April, the new benefits agency will come into effect. It will be able to work within a set of clear, unambiguous, published and measurable targets to deliver a better service to those who need our help. I hope that he will avail himself of the opportunity to visit those offices. [Interruption.] If the hon. Gentleman could restrain his predilection for sedentary interventions, it would be more helpful. I hope that he understands that we are determined to deliver a better service.
Labour Members have talked an awful lot of nonsense. The hon. Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mrs. Heal) delivered herself of the most foolhardy statement of the debate when she said that, because the retirement pension had not been increased in line with earnings, pensioners were worse off. There is no question of that. Under this Government, the standard of living of pensioners has gone up by 31 per cent.—twice as fast as the rate of increase in the standard of living of the popualtion as a whole. That has been due to the increase in savings, the spread of occupational pensions and the maturing of the state earnings-related pension scheme. Anybody who looks around the country will see with his own eyes that the pensioners' standard of living has gone up by substantially more than it did under the Labour Government, whatever that Government did to the basic retirement pension. We are determined to ensure, by a combination of policies, that that rate of increase continues.
The hon. Member for Oldham, West and my hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson) mentioned family credit and its importance in supporting the living standards of families. The take-up of family credit has steadily increased. It now reaches twice as many families as family income supplement did, and we have a case load of 325,000 people on family credit. We are anxious to increase the take-up as much as possible. I am sure that, whatever quibbles the hon. Member for Oldham, West has, he will support us in trying to ensure that the benefit goes to as many families as possible. He will have noticed, as he spends some time in front of the television set, the television advertisements that we are showing at the moment. He will know that there is a special insert in our child benefit books reminding people that they may be entitled to family credit.
As we are talking about the living standards of families, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will recognise that, by introducing family credit, we have made a substantial contribution to the living standards of those entitled to it. He dared to mention unemployment traps and poverty traps. Our reforms in 1988 made a substantial contribution to removing the excessively high deduction rates which occurred under the previous system. We are contributing, and will continue to contribute, to the living standards of families.

Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—

The House divided: Ayes 196, Noes 304.

Division No. 96]
[10 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Grocott, Bruce


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley, N.)
Hardy, Peter


Alton, David
Harman, Ms Harriet


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Haynes, Frank


Armstrong, Hilary
Heal, Mrs Sylvia


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Henderson, Doug


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Hinchliffe, David


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)


Barron, Kevin
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Beckett, Margaret
Home Robertson, John


Bell, Stuart
Hood, Jimmy


Bellotti, David
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Howells, Geraint


Benton, Joseph
Hoyle, Doug


Bermingham, Gerald
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Blunkett, David
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Boateng, Paul
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Boyes, Roland
Illsley, Eric


Bradley, Keith
Ingram, Adam


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Janner, Greville


Brown, Gordon (D'mtine E)
Johnston, Sir Russell


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Jones, leuan (Ynys Môn)


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Kirkwood, Archy


Caborn, Richard
Lamond, James


Callaghan, Jim
Leadbitter, Ted


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Leighton, Ron


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Lewis, Terry


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Livingstone, Ken


Cartwright, John
Livsey, Richard


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Clelland, David
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Cohen, Harry
Loyden, Eddie


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
McAllion, John


Cousins, Jim
McAvoy, Thomas


Cox, Tom
McCartney, Ian


Crowther, Stan
McFall, John


Cryer, Bob
McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)


Cummings, John
McKelvey, William


Cunliffe, Lawrence
McLeish, Henry


Cunningham, Dr John
McMaster, Gordon


Dalyell, Tam
McNamara, Kevin


Darling, Alistair
Madden, Max


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'I)
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Dewar, Donald
Martlew, Eric


Dixon, Don
Maxton, John


Dobson, Frank
Meacher, Michael


Doran, Frank
Meale, Alan


Duffy, A. E. P.
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeiey)


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'I &amp; Bute)


Eastham, Ken
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Fearn, Ronald
Morgan, Rhodri


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)
Mowlam, Marjorie


Fisher, Mark
Mullin, Chris


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Murphy, Paul


Foster, Derek
Nellist, Dave


Foulkes, George
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Fraser, John
O'Brien, William


Fyfe, Maria
O'Hara, Edward


Galloway, George
O'Neill, Martin


Garrett, John (Norwich South)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)
Paisley, Rev Ian


George, Bruce
Parry, Robert


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Patchett, Terry


Golding, Mrs Llin
Pike, Peter L


Gordon, Mildred
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Gould, Bryan
Primarolo, Dawn


Graham, Thomas
Quin, Ms Joyce


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Radice, Giles


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Randall, Stuart


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Redmond, Martin





Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn
Strang, Gavin


Richardson, Jo
Straw, Jack


Robertson, George
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Robinson, Geoffrey
Taylor, Rt Hon J. D. (S'ford)


Rogers, Allan
Trimble, David


Rooker, Jeff
Turner, Dennis


Rooney, Terence
Vaz, Keith


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Walley, Joan


Ross, William (Londonderry E)
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Rowlands, Ted
Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)


Ruddock, Joan
Wigley, Dafydd


Sheerman, Barry
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Short, Clare
Wilson, Brian


Skinner, Dennis
Winnick, David


Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)
Worthington, Tony


Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)
Wray, Jimmy


Soley, Clive
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Spearing, Nigel



Steel, Rt Hon Sir David
Tellers for the Ayes:


Steinberg, Gerry
Mr. Robert N. Wareing and


Stott, Roger
Mr. Jack Thompson.




NOES


Adley, Robert
Churchill, Mr


Aitken, Jonathan
Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Plymouth)


Alexander, Richard
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Clark, Rt Hon Sir William


Allason, Rupert
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Colvin, Michael


Amess, David
Conway, Derek


Amos, Alan
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)


Arbuthnot, James
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Cope, Rt Hon John


Arnold, Sir Thomas
Cormack, Patrick


Ashby, David
Couchman, James


Atkins, Robert
Cran, James


Atkinson, David
Critchley, Julian


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Curry, David


Baldry, Tony
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Batiste, Spencer
Day, Stephen


Bellingham, Henry
Devlin, Tim


Bendall, Vivian
Dickens, Geoffrey


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Dorrell, Stephen


Benyon, W.
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Dover, Den


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Dunn, Bob


Body, Sir Richard
Durant, Sir Anthony


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Dykes, Hugh


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Eggar, Tim


Boswell, Tim
Emery, Sir Peter


Bottom ley, Peter
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Evennett, David


Bowden, A. (Brighton K'pto'n)
Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Fallon, Michael


Bowis, John
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Fishburn, John Dudley


Brazier, Julian
Fookes, Dame Janet


Bright, Graham
Forman, Nigel


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Forth, Eric


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick
Fox, Sir Marcus


Buck, Sir Antony
Franks, Cecil


Burns, Simon
Freeman, Roger


Burt, Alistair
French, Douglas


Butler, Chris
Gale, Roger


Butterfill, John
Gardiner, Sir George


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Gill, Christopher


Carrington, Matthew
Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Carttiss, Michael
Glyn, Dr Sir Alan


Cash, William
Goodlad, Alastair


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Chapman, Sydney
Gorst, John


Chope, Christopher
Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)






Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)


Gregory, Conal
McLoughlin, Patrick


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael


Grist, Ian
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


Ground, Patrick
Madel, David


Grylls, Michael
Mans, Keith


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Maples, John


Hague, William
Marland, Paul


Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)
Marlow, Tony


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Hampson, Dr Keith
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Hanley, Jeremy
Mates, Michael


Hannam, John
Maude, Hon Francis


Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'Il Gr')
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Harris, David
Mellor, Rt Hon David


Hawkins, Christopher
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Hayes, Jerry
Miller, Sir Hal


Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney
Mills, Iain


Hayward, Robert
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Heath, Rt Hon Edward
Mitchell, Sir David


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Moate, Roger


Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)
Monro, Sir Hector


Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Morris, M (N'hampton S)


Hill, James
Morrison, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Hind, Kenneth
Moss, Malcolm


Holt, Richard
Moynihan, Hon Colin


Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Neale, Sir Gerrard


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Nelson, Anthony


Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Neubert, Sir Michael


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Hunt, Rt Hon David
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Hunter, Andrew
Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley


Irvine, Michael
Oppenheim, Phillip


Irving, Sir Charles
Page, Richard


Jackson, Robert
Paice, James


Janman, Tim
Patnick, Irvine


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Patten, Rt Hon John


Jones, Robert B (Herts W)
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Pawsey, James


Key, Robert
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Kilfedder, James
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Porter, David (Waveney)


King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Portillo, Michael


Kirkhope, Timothy
Price, Sir David


Kirkwood, Archy
Raffan, Keith


Knapman, Roger
Raison, Rt Hon Sir Timothy


Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Rathbone, Tim


Knowles, Michael
Redwood, John


Knox, David
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Rhodes James, Robert


Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Latham, Michael
Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm


Lee, John (Pendle)
Roberts, Sir Wyn (Conwy)


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Roe, Mrs Marion


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Rost, Peter


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Rowe, Andrew


Lord, Michael
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Luce, Rt Hon Sir Richard
Sainsbury, Hon Tim


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Sayeed, Jonathan


Macfarlane, Sir Neil
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas





Shaw, David (Dover)
Thurnham, Peter


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Shelton, Sir William
Tracey, Richard


Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Viggers, Peter


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Shersby, Michael
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Sims, Roger
Walden, George


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Waller, Gary


Speed, Keith
Walters, Sir Dennis


Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)
Ward, John


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Squire, Robin
Warren, Kenneth


Stanbrook, Ivor
Watts, John


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Wheeler, Sir John


Steen, Anthony
Whitney, Ray


Stern, Michael
Widdecombe, Ann


Stevens, Lewis
Wiggin, Jerry


Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)
Wilkinson, John


Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)
Wilshire, David


Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Stokes, Sir John
Winterton, Nicholas


Sumberg, David
Wolfson, Mark


Tapsell, Sir Peter
Wood, Timothy


Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Woodcock, Dr. Mike


Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)
Yeo, Tim


Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Temple-Morris, Peter



Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)
Tellers for the Noes:


Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Mr. John M. Taylor and


Thorne, Neil
Mr. Tom Sackville.


Thornton, Malcolm

Question accordingly negatived.

Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 30 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.

MR. SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House notes that the policies of the last Labour Government pushed inflation to an all-time peak of 27 per cent., destroying savings and eroding living standards for millions of families and that Her Majesty's Opposition remains committed to policies which would once again sharply raise taxation and inflation; and commends Her Majesty's Government's record in creating new jobs, in widening opportunities for home ownership, in directing additional help to low-income families, and in bringing about an increase of one-third in the real take-home pay of a family on average earnings; and reaffirms its support for the Government's priority in fighting inflation.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That, at this day's sitting, the Motion in the name of Mr. John MacGregor relating to Statutory Instruments, &amp;c. (the draft European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (Immunities and Privileges) Order 1991) may be proceeded with, though opposed, until fifteen minutes to Eleven o'clock or the end of a period of three-quarters of an hour after it has been entered upon, whichever is the later.—[Mr. Neil Hamilton.]

Court of Auditors

Mr. Speaker: I have selected the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken).

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Francis Maude): I beg to move.
That this House takes note of the Annual Report of the Court of Auditors of the European Communities for 1989.
We frequently talk about the level of Community expenditure, but less often about the manner in which Community funds are spent—the "how" rather than the "how much". Tonight's debate enables us to remedy this.
Under the treaty of Rome, the Court of Auditors draws up an annual report on Community revenue and expenditure after the close of each financial year. This goes to the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament, which must examine it along with the accounts and the financial statement that the Commission submits. It then falls to the Parliament, acting on the recommendation of the Council, to give a discharge to the Commission over its implementation of the budget.
This is the court's 13th annual report. The court was established in 1975, in response to pressure for an independent audit body. It does much useful work, but the annual report is pre-eminent. It is the principal means of scrutinising how the Community spends taxpayer's money; of extending to the Community the practices that are routine here; and of ensuring that money is spent in a lawful and regular manner and that financial management has been sound. The court has power to expose incompetence, waste, inefficiency and fraud, and to stimulate change. It deserves our support. I shall say a few words later about our proposals to enhance its authority.
I turn to the court's report on the 1989 budget, which is the subject of today's debate. The explanatory memorandum that I submitted to the Scrutiny Committee comprehensively summarises its contents.
There are some consistent and worrying themes. In particular, there is continuing evidence that certain Community programmes lack objectives that are sufficiently precise. In a number of instances the financial controls needed for proper implementation of certain policies are not in place, are not sufficiently rigorous, or are not being observed properly.
Areas singled out for criticism include agricultural programmes and the structural funds. There are also concerns about research. I will deal briefly with these three areas in turn.
Fifty-four per cent. of spending arises on agriculture guarantee support. In its report, the court criticised a number of programmes for failing to achieve important objectives. Set-aside, for instance, is a scheme to reduce grain production by taking land out of cultivation. A significant amount has been spent on this programme, but that has still not stopped the amount of land under cultivation increasing; and the land that has been taken out of production has frequently been marginal. The Commission will be looking into the court's suggestions to improve the scheme's cost-effectiveness.
We welcome the court's emphasis on the need for simplification of the agricultural programmes and for better implementation and control.

Mr. Andrew Rowe (Mid-Kent): This may be an ignorant question, but it would help me if my hon. Friend would answer it kindly. To what extent are the programmes and the definitions thereof the responsibility of the Council of Ministers, and to what extent are they the responsibility of the other organs of the Community?

Mr. Maude: That is not in any way a daft question. The Commission makes proposals to the Council of Ministers, and in general they will be detailed and specific. The Council of Ministers makes a decision upon them, having amended them as it thinks appropriate. The detailed drafting of a proposal, at every stage of the negotiation, generally will be in the hands of the Commission but subject to amendment in the Council of Ministers.

Mr. William Cash: Will my hon. Friend note that in the Republic of Germany and in Rheinland Pfalz a clear declaration must be made about the fields to which set-aside should apply? Is he aware that there are no maps showing the location of those fields? In Sicily, the maps that must be produced are obsolete, because the land register dates back to 1940.

Mr. Maude: My hon. Friend vividly makes the point that the system is not working satisfactorily. That is the point to which the Court of Auditors has rightly drawn attention. It is evident that the system of scrutiny has some potency. The Commission will have to introduce proposals to ensure that the scheme operates much more tightly. My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to deficiencies in the way that the scheme works.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: To be fair to the Commission, which I think should be protected in this instance, may I ask this question: is it not true that the Court of Auditors pointed out that, although 611,000 hectares had been taken out under set-aside, and a fortune spent from public funds to enable that to be done, the number of hectares growing cereals had increased, that cereal production had increased, and that the barley mountain was at an all-time high? The Court of Auditors criticised the scheme as worthless and pointless, not the administration of the scheme by the Commission. Should not my hon. Friend accept that it is the scheme that is wrong, not the administration?

Mr. Maude: My hon. Friend is right to say that the Court of Auditors pointed out starkly that, at the same time as the set-aside scheme, which was designed to take land out of cultivation, was operating, more land came into cultivation. The land that had been taken out generally was poor land at the margins of possible cultivation. There is a problem with the operation of the scheme, and the Court of Auditors has done the Community a service in drawing attention to that. The Community must now resolve those problems.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Does the Minister accept that the Council of Ministers has the final responsibility, and that the criticisms by the Court of Auditors are levelled against the Council of Ministers? Why should the Commission get all the stick?

Mr. Maude: It is heartening to find so many champions of the European Commission in this House, and so many who are anxious to spring to its defence. That will be a source of great comfort and support to the Commission. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that the Council of


Ministers takes responsibility for the decision to set up the scheme, and for the parameters and the guidelines under which it operates.
However, the hon. Gentleman has considerable experience of these matters, and he will appreciate that the Council of Ministers does not administer the scheme; the Commission administers it. It is for the Commission to respond to the criticisms made by the Court of Auditors. That is its duty under the treaty. The Commission made the original proposal to the Council of Ministers, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman appreciates the way in which these matters must work.
The court's criticisms of the structural funds include failure to define the fund's objectives properly and the absence of adequate guidelines for implementation. Spending on structural funds increased substantially following the reforms of the Community budget in 1988, but the court rightly observed that those reforms did not guarantee that the funds would achieve their objectives.
Therefore, the Commission must ensure that the funds provide value for money, and the Council will need to follow up the recommendations of the court when it reviews the policy on structural funds.
The court also comments on the Community's research activities, especially work done by the joint research centre for other Commission directorates-general. Because the joint research centre bears the costs of all the work that it does directly, the other parts of the Commission have no incentive to give any research work to outside contractors. The court says that the centre must establish a proper customer-contractor relationship with its internal clients.
The court also criticises the early retirement arrangements at the joint research centre, which were reported widely in the press earlier this year, although some reports did not reflect the situation accurately. The centre does have some significant problems—in particular, a redundancy scheme which is over-generous but which fails, none the less, to match the centre's staffing with its work load. We shall urge the Council to look into that issue.
I must stress again the importance that we attach to achieving good value for the money that is spent by the Community. To that end, we have made suggestions for a series of treaty amendments in the intergovernmental conference on political union which would improve financial management in the Community. These include measures to enhance scrutiny by the European Parliament, to underline member states' obligations to counter fraud, and to develop the responsibilities of the Court 'tif Auditors. These ideas, which we have canvassed widely with our colleagues in the Community, will be discussed increasingly in the coming months.
Next Monday the ECOFIN Council will decide its recommendations on the Court of Auditors report. That recommendation will be sent to the European Parliament to enable it to give the Commission a discharge on that report. Tonight's debate is an important part of this process of scrutiny, and it will be extremely useful to me to hear the views of the House on this matter before I attend the ECOFIN Council on Monday.

Mr. Tim Smith: Further to my hon. Friend's comments about the Government's recommenda-tions for an improvement in the scrutiny arrangements within the Community and the need to encourage Parliament to take more interest, does he agree that, unless

we make progress in that respect, we shall continue to have annual debates like this and that will lead nowhere? The European Parliament should take more interest in the scrutiny of Community spending. A committee should be set up along the lines of the Public Accounts Committee of the House, which has some clout; people take some notice of its recommendations.

Mr. Maude: I do not regard annual debates such as this as inappropriate, or as anything but useful. They are a valuable part of the scrutiny process, and I would not want to discount them. However, my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith) is correct in saying that it would be desirable for the European Parliament to attach greater weight to the work that it can do to subject the work of the Commission in particular to proper scrutiny. There is a committee which is roughly equivalent to the Public Accounts Committee—the budgetary control committee—and a number of our proposals would enhance its power, especially the power to call specific officials from the Commission before it to interrogate them about the way in which they discharge their responsibilities.

Mr. Charles Wardle: Does my hon. Friend think that if this Parliament were to take a closer interest in the findings of the Court of Auditors, and if the European Parliament were to do the same, the first priority would be that the accounts should be delivered sooner? This evening we are considering the accounts for the year up to 31 December 1989, and we are now halfway through March 1991.

Mr. Maude: My hon. Friend makes an important point, but I suspect that it may not be possible to truncate the period to any extent. The court cannot audit the accounts until they have been drawn up at the end of the year. The process of detailed scrutiny by those examining the Court of Auditor's report cannot begin until a little time after the end of the financial year. However, the sooner that scrutiny can be undertaken, the better it will be.
I repeat that we shall debate those matters at ECOFIN on Monday. I look forward to hearing the views of right hon. and hon. Members on this important report.

Mr. Chris Smith: Sadly, I must begin with an uncharacteristic note of congratulation to the Financial Secretary. The memorandum before the House is a considerable improvement on those submitted in earlier debates concerning the Court of Auditors and related matters. The memorandum is clear, and it sets out in greater detail than was the case last year the content of the court's report.
It is a pity that the documents for consideration tonight —some of which are lengthy—were available from the Vote Office only on Monday, two days before the debate. I hope that matters can be arranged rather better in future years, so that we may study at greater leisure and length the important and detailed points that the Court of Auditors makes.
The court has performed a useful and important role in identifying the probity and efficiency—or the lack of it —that attaches to the application of European Community funds, and I hope that its observations will be noted not just by the European Parliament but by the Council of Ministers and the Commission.
During the Financial Secretary's speech, there was an interesting exchange about who is responsible for acting as an overseer. The answer is both the Commission and the Council of Ministers, and it is not good enough for the Financial Secretary to say, "The Council of Ministers sets the framework and guidelines, and put the policies in motion, but the Commission administers them," because the Council oversees the Commission's work as part of its administrative responsibilities.
When difficulties and problems such as those identified by the Court of Auditors exist, it behoves not just the Commission but the Council of Ministers—of which the British Government form a part—to act on the court's recommendations.
Many of the court's specific points should be addressed, and I will highlight just five of them. First, it pointed to the absence of any sector-by-sector aggregate budget summary, which meant that it had to add up the individual figures to reach its conclusions. That must be remedied, if at all possible. Secondly, the court drew attention to the continuing overproduction cif butter in the Community by a staggering 25 per cent., and highlighted the consequential complexity of the subsidy regulation.
Thirdly, the Court of Auditors noted the lack of consistent information about the use of the social fund in relation to supporting the long-term unemployed.
Fourthly, the court questioned the direction and efficiency of aid to Bangladesh and especially to the poorest people and areas of that country. Finally, it questioned the lack of management controls in relation to some aspects of aid to central and eastern Europe. Those points sprang out at me when I read the Court of Auditors' report as items that must cause concern.
It is worth noting that the Commission's response to those points has been helpful in some respects, but too hesitant in others. There seems to be a problem ensuring that the findings of the Court of Auditors and its recommendations do not fall into a black hole of inactivity and inaction, but instead are implemented. There must be a continuing drive in the Community to get the best value for money and the best efficiency from the considerable funds that are deployed.
As well as the specific items that the court identified, some larger questions arise; I refer to two that deserve special consideration. The first involves the court's analysis of the development of the regional fund. The regional fund is becoming increasingly important within the Community's overall budget. It is, within a four-year period, doubling in size, and it is therefore very important that it is used wisely and sensibly.
The Court of Auditors' report refers to the benefits of diversification in the use of the regional fund—a process started in 1974 which was consolidated by the budgetary changes and guidelines instituted in 1989. The report also points to the increasing co-operation between national and Commission levels in administering the regional funds. However, it also identifies a remaining weakness in the assessment and monitoring of particular projects and programmes. Given the increasing importance of regional funds in the overall development of the Community and the desire to address imbalances between regions, it is important that that weakness is addressed.
The other specific question arising from the court's report to which I wish to draw attention is the analysis of the budgetary control over the agricultural guidance and guarantee fund. The report states rightly and sensibly that although the fund's overall expenditure may not have exceeded its budgetary guideline figure, that was achieved only by switching between different chapter headings within the overall expenditure level. Several of those chapter headings were exceeded.
If such virement in subsequent years is not possible between chapter headings, there is an obvious danger that the overall guideline figure for agricultural guarantee support might be exceeded. Given the enormous proportion that that section represents of the Community budget at the moment and the over-preponderance given to it within the balance of the overall budget, it is important that we ensure that it is kept within the guidelines. Those two specific points need careful consideration.
Several specific points that need a United Kingdom Government response arise from the report. They may be small, but nonetheless they are important. I point the Government's attention to just four of them.
Under paragraph 1.68, dealing with special agreements with third countries, the report notes that,
every month in the case of the amounts deducted by the UK",
there is
no indication of the reference periods and no way of identifying the amounts concerned".
It would be useful to know whether the Government have proposals for rectifying that problem.
Under paragraph 2.25, the court notes that in the United Kingdom the certificates of origin information manual is available only at the Central Customs Office and not more widely available. Have the Government any proposals for ensuring that it is more widely available? Under paragraph 4.3.43, where the report deals with aid for small producers of cereals, it notes:
In the United Kingdom the non-retention of invoices also posed difficulties for audit purposes.
Have the Government any proposals for rectifying that problem? Under item 4.4.25, dealing with set-aside, which has already been mentioned, the report notes:
As at March 1990 neither Italy, the FR of Germany nor the United Kingdom had submitted the reports
on the findings arising from inspections which were due by 1 July 1989. Have the Government submitted that report? Are they intent on ensuring that their performance is somewhat better in future?
Those may be small points, but they identify matters in which some improvement on the part of the Government as well as on the part of the Commission and the Council of Ministers might be required.
When we debated this matter last year, I asked the then Paymaster General, who has since risen in the ranks of the Conservative party, what the Government intended to do to improve the resources of the Court of Auditors in fighting fraud in the European Community. The court's report for 1988 identified several serious instances of fraud, and the House was united in feeling that that should be tackled seriously.
At that stage, the Paymaster General told us that the resources available to the anti-fraud section of the Court of Auditors amounted to 30 members of staff. I asked then whether that was regarded as sufficient, and I repeat the question. If it is not sufficient, surely it is one matter in


which the bureaucracy in Brussels can act in the interests of the sensible running of the European Community, rather than against it.
We must ensure that the Community operates the substantial funds available to it with probity and efficiency. Of course, the Community has a long way to go

in achieving that objective, as do our Government, but the Court of Auditors is a valuable instrument in ensuring that progress is made. We should welcome the report arid demand that all bodies responsible, including our Government and their representatives in the Council of Ministers, take action on the findings.

Court of Auditors

Mr. Jonathan Aitken: I beg to move, as an amendment to the motion, at the end to add:
congratulates the Court for once again producing a detailed
and comprehensive account of the appalling waste, mismanagement and incompetence of the institutions of the European Community; and much regrets that there is no effective vehicle within the European Community to ensure that appropriate action is taken on the issues raised in the Report.
You may have noticed, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that the wording of the amendment is somewhat sharper than the congratulatory tone of parts of the speech of my hon. Friend the Minister. It is not difficult, therefore, to raise the temperature a little, because the prose style of the Court of Auditors' report must rank as among the most boring in the world, and my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary delivered his comments upon it in a most appropriately soporific style—perhaps in the hope that none of us would notice some of the irregularities that he was talking about.
I was troubled by my hon. Friend's lack of indignation about what the amendment calls
the appalling waste, mismanagement and incompetence of the institutions of the European Community".
I try to imagine myself for a moment not in the House of Commons talking about the European Community and its Court of Auditors' report, but at an annual general meeting of a public company in this country, discussing with the shareholders an auditors' report couched in such terms. In any half-decent company which had an auditors' report highlighting such failures and weaknesses, there would immediately be demands for the resignation of the chief executive and changes in the board, while the institutional shareholders would be up in arms. Even in public finance, the Public Accounts Committee would make a serious song and dance.
After reading the extraordinary catalogue of irregularities, creative accountancy, unlawful switchings of accounts, monitoring failures and plain vanilla frauds which all seem to be part of the staple diet of Euro-folk, I thought that the European Commission needed a new signature tune. I would suggest the old nursery rhyme, "Frère Jacques"—"Are you sleeping? Are you sleeping?" It is apparent that brother Jacques Delors and his merry men in Brussels have been disgracefully and incompetently asleep at the switch when it comes to running the proper financial management of the Commission. Instead of running a tight ship, I suppose that they have been dreaming of political unity.
We need to focus on some of the things in the report and address seriously whether we should not merely criticise in sharp terms—much sharper than those used by my hon. Friend the Minister—but also try to do something about it——

Mr. Hugh Dykes: I very much agree with what my hon. Friend has said. Does he agree that it is interesting that, each year, when the Court of Auditors' report laments that it needs more staff and more resources for its investigations, it always confirms, above all, that all these misdemeanours occur in all member states equally?

Mr. Aitken: It also confirms, year after year, that the frauds go on and on and get worse and worse. My hon. Friend's comment seems to prove what is happening year after year. We need to do something about it.
When one goes through the report's small print, one does not know whether to laugh or cry. In certain places one can do both. I shall have a stab at stimulating both emotions in the House. Let us, for example, tackle the subject of redundancies in Europe, which seem a different form of redundancy from any that I can discover. Some of us have long known that the Brussels Commission is the Valhalla of jobs for the boys, but what is new in the report is that it also turns out to be the El Dorado of golden handshakes for the Euro-researchers.
I found the comments of my hon. Friend the Minister amazingly complacent and self-satisfied about what he thought had gone on in the research department. He seemed to think that there were "continuing problems", or something like that. However, chapter 9 of the report discloses a jolly little tale—an expensive tale—of 150 temps in the Commission's joint research centre who were made redundant. They knew that they were temporary staff, because they had a contract stating that they were temporary staff and that the contract was terminable on either side at three months' notice. However, when the temps were made redundant, they received not the three months' money that they might have expected, but 70 per cent., of their salaries for each year of their working lives until the age of 65.
In the last three years, that has worked out at £30,000 per researcher. That exercise cost £4·5 million in 1988, 1989 and 1990. Presumably it will be a continuing cost to the Commission until those temps celebrate their considerably enriched 65th birthdays. It adds a new meaning to laughing all the way to the bank.
The European Commission puts it rather differently and in rather more moderate language. It simply says:
Why it was necessary to give such terms to staff engaged on temporary contracts terminable at three months' notice is not clear.
Obviously, a lot more is not clear in the wonderful world of Euro-retirements and redundancies.
The Father Christmas munificence towards those who get the sack in Brussels becomes even more incredible when we reach the European Parliament. Chapter 15·4 of the auditors' report criticises the incredible payment of £2·2 million to three redundant persons. It is not clear whether the fortunate trio were Members of the European Parliament, MEPs' staff or European Parliament cleaning ladies, but at £730,000 per head of redundancy money for getting the sack, they too will have laughed all the way to the bank as a result of being dismissed by the Commission. The auditors say that the payments were made because of a "considerable system defect". The data on which the payments were made
had not been checked either by the administrators responsible or by the Financial Controller".
It is very different from the world of our own dear Fees Office here in the House of Commons.
Such everyday stories of European Commission money folk in the Court of Auditors report are always expensive. Sometimes they are funny, sometimes they are sad. To me, the saddest parts of the report are those which deal with European Community aid, far too much of which is wasted by sheer incompetence.
In the House we hear a great deal from my right hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development about how glad she is that most of Britain's overseas aid is channelled through the European Commission, but one might take a different view after reading through the passages of the report on aid to west Africa and Bangladesh. The auditors say that, of last year's £25 million of food aid to Bangladesh, only 38 per cent. was actually distributed. The remaining 62 per cent. was either eaten by senior civil servants—I suppose that is food for the boys—or sold by them for a profit. The poorest Bangladeshis simply did not receive the aid that they were supposed to receive.
In west Africa, the story is much worse. Let me focus the attention of the House on the story of EC aid to Benin, a country that I happen to know quite well, and which is one of the poorest countries in the whole of Africa. This sad story is to be found on pages 206 to 216. Here is what was wasted. There was a E3 million EC aid project for village water wells. All the wells had to be abandoned because they did not work properly and had not been properly surveyed. There was £40 million EC aid for a cattle-rearing project. It failed because of delays and inadequate financial management and, again, a failure to do proper surveys. The same fate befell a Benin fish farming project, to which EC aid of £1·5 million had been given. That failed because its self-sufficiency was doubtful, if not non-existent. A Benin wildlife park failed to open its gates for many of the same reasons.
But perhaps the most shocking story of aid to Benin that went wrong involves a European Community aid transfer of £5 million in cash, called a STABEX transfer. The money was tranferred from Brussels to a joint EC-Benin bank account in July 1988. It was supposed to be under the control of the joint signatories of a Benin official and an EC official. The EC official forgot his duties, and the Benin official moved the entire sum to another bank account without proper authorisation by the EC official, who did not notice for another seven months that the money had been moved. Then the bank to which the £5 million in cash had been moved went bankrupt, and the whole amount of aid had to be written off.
Five million pounds is a lot of money in aid when children are starving and aid is desperately needed in a poor part of Africa. It is not amusing but desperately sad that such incompetent mismanagement of the EC aid programmes should occur.

Mr. Rowe: Does not my hon. Friend agree that this is the same story, writ large, as is sadly so often the case with national aid programmes, where we encounter exactly the same difficulties despite our best efforts? Does it not suggest to my hon. Friend that we should reconsider the policy under which aid is given? It might be better to allow organisations and companies with an established track record of delivering good work in a country to be given additional assistance, rather than, as at present, the frequent setting up, de novo, of schemes by people with no proven track record?

Mr. Aitken: My hon. Friend's intervention had several themes, but I do not think that I agree with any of them. Perhaps one with which I do agree is that anybody other than the EC would be better doing the job. If my hon. Friend has up his sleeve some organisations with a track record, let us send them the money. I do not agree that: the national performance of our Government or civil servants

has been nearly as bad as that of the EC. I have not heard any horror stories about a British Government official who allows £7 million in cash to be transferred to the wrong account and does not notice the transfer for seven months, so that the full amount is written off and wasted. That is a disgraceful story. I cannot accept that there is any comparison between such mismanagement and anything that I have heard of within the British Government.

Mr. Cash: Does not my hon. Friend agree that, in light of the tremendous activities of charities seeking to raise money to help those who are starving in the third world, it is incredible that figures such as he has mentioned should be squandered? That is a total disgrace and must be sorted out.

Mr. Aitken: I am glad that I seem to have raised the temperature in the House, because that is what I intended to do. Some of the wastage is heart-breaking, but it does not seem to matter to those in Brussels. If the message goes out from this House that people care about the scale of incompetence, which can be heart-breaking for those involved in the world of aid, it will be a good thing.
Agriculture is the biggest item in the EC budget and features extensively in the criticisms in the auditors' report. It is perfectly clear that the European Commission's financial accounting methods for agriculture are roughly those of Polly Peck or Bernie Cornfeld's Investors Overseas Services. One can find examples after example of that. Page 55 of the report criticises the Commission for treating food aid gifts to third-world countries as sales at intervention prices, so making fraudulent profits and improving the agricultural budget. On another page, the report states that agricultural expenditure is kept within its guidelines only by the dubious accountancy practice of transferring from those sectors with underspends to those with overspends.
Page 83 contains a pretty clear hint that the co-responsibility levy is continuously evaded by continental farmers, who pretend to consume large quantities of the cereals on their farms in order to qualify for benefit. I noted the Court of Auditors' comment that none of the member states visited, except the United Kingdom, took steps to check the reliability of global figures and check farms on a test basis. Only Britain operates on a level playing field.
European agricultural spending today faces a new budget crisis, largely because of the cost of buying in east German corn, which has risen to a cost of more than £1 billion this year. That will mean cuts in European Commission agricultural spending. As we have the Court of Auditors' report in our hands, it is a good moment to ask what Mr. Delors is going to do about it. We know the answer from some interesting recent press reports. Mr. Delors has decided to cheat and continue the sort of fraudulent, creative accountancy cycle that we find in the auditors' report.
Why do I say that? I shall quote from a fascinating article, written by Mr. Boris Johnson, the Brussels correspondent of The Daily Telegraph, which appears in this week's Spectator. Mr. Johnson states that the EC must make some cuts. The article states
Just to keep within budget, this means moderately painful price cuts for farmers in the whole of Europe. Resistance is being led by the French, and amazingly, Delors himself.
Last week he startled officials by allowing himself to be outvoted by his 16 Commission colleagues after a flagrant attempt to protect French farmers. While his colleagues


agreed with the Irish farm Commissioner, Mr. Ray MacSharry, that there was no choice but to make the cuts, Delors said it would be better to admit defeat and break the EEC budget. Voted down, he fumed: 'I will not defend this in public.' MacSharry: 'Do you mean to say you will not defend a collegiate decision?' Delors: 'I will not take moral lessons from you, MacSharry!'
That is the sort of conversation that sets a Brussels cocktail party a-twitter, and raises questions about marbles.
The report is important, because it raises the curtain on a whole series of totally unacceptable financial manage-ment practices. At times, they are fraudulent, deceitful and dishonest. I shall not press the matter to a vote, but I take issue with the tone of my hon. Friend the Minister, who misjudged the mood of the House by not saying as clearly as I hope he will if he speaks again at the end of the debate, how shocked the House and, I hope, the Government are at some of the revelations in the report.
Year after year, we turn up for these late night debates and simply accept that somehow there is a continuing financial shambles in the Commission. It is not good enough. The amendment asks that we take action
to ensure that appropriate action is taken on the issues raised in the Report.
I hope that the debate will encourage the Government to take some truly effective and thorough action.

Sir Russell Johnston: As hon. Members have said, we are debating a detailed two-volume report. The first volume has 133 pages and the second has 85. There are also many tables. As the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Mr. Wardle) said, it is now March 1991 and the report is for 1989, and we have an hour and a half in which to debate it. That is not a very effective way in which to proceed. Despite what the hon. Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) said, the Minister did not misjudge the mood of the House. He caught it just right, because the mood is somnolent and the Minister was reflectively somnolent.
One can only pick out some matters. Even the critical hon. Member for Thanet, South could pick only the odd bit of the report, and in dealing with any organisation one can always find awful things that have gone wrong. I shall pick three matters in the report, and the first of them is not a criticism. It is to note, and it is worth noting, the size of the bureaucracy. The report tells us specifically that the total staff for all European Community institutions is 24,266. That includes everybody—the cleaners, the electricians, the doormen, the lot—and the Commission takes 17,257 of those. For a Community of 338 million, and bearing in mind the policy areas that are covered and allowing for error, sometimes gross error as we have heard, that represents good value for money.

Mr. Bob Cryer: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Sir Russell Johnston: How could I refuse?

Mr. Cryer: The hon. Gentleman advances an argument used by many pro-marketeers, that the EEC has a small bureaucracy. Does he take into account the fact that a large part of the EEC bureaucracy is administered by individual member states? For example, our Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food employs 3,500 civil servants solely on EEC matters and that is repeated in

almost every Department. The idea that there is a relatively small and efficient group of people administering the EEC is not true.

Sir Russell Johnston: It is true, but I shall not argue at length with the hon. Gentleman. It is not true that other Departments employ the 3,000-plus that the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, and presumably the Scottish Office Agriculture and Fisheries Department, employ. The Ministry is in a special position. The hon. Gentleman has made his point.
My second point concerns fraud and irregularity, on which the hon. Member for Thanet, South properly laid great emphasis. The United Kingdom has a good record in putting European legislation into effect. However, no country is perfect, and the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) gave examples of where we have not gone along with what we have been required to do.
The Court of Auditors makes a major and admirable effort to cover the field, but it is not clear that there are effective measures to deal with defaulters. Financial sanctions were supported by a recent vote in the European Parliament, and I wish to know whether there has been any progress on this. At the administrative level, for example, one notices in paragraph 1.73 that the court says:
There is no systematic linkage of information concerning frauds to the entering of own resources in the accounts. Such information could, however, have an effect on the recording of the entitlements established. In particular, the Commission does not make out any recovery orders, even in the case of amounts that have been properly identified.
That is not satisfactory. The response from the Commission, on page 226, is long and complicated. I simply ask the Minister whether we are getting on top of this. If the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury is correct, 30 fraud detectors for 300 million people does not seem a good ratio.
My third point concerns a matter which has, for a long time, caused all those interested in an effective European Community regional fund, based on agreed criteria, deep dissatisfaction with the attitude of this Government and of the Labour Government before them, after the establishment of the regional fund. As hon. Members will recall, that was made the responsibility of the then George Thomson, now Lord Thomson of Monifieth. I am talking about additionality.
The Court of Auditors' report expresses the problem succinctly and clearly at paragraph 7.106, where it says:
The principle of complementarity"—
these are awful words—
aims at ensuring that Community action is in addition to national action to assist the regions and is not used as a substitute. The implementation of this concept requires the drawing-up of adequate procedures to ensure that Community contributions to regional development are not in practice diverted from their purpose
We do not do it that way. In the past, regional funds, which were usually based on a negotiation of a fixed proportion, have been treated by the Treasury as a clawback of what the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher), used to call "our own money". I do not accept that concept, and I should like to hear the Goverment's opinion of the clear statement by the Court of Auditors of what is proper—a statement of which we are in breach, and to which no reference is made in the commentary by the Treasury or the Scrutiny Committee.
My last point is about the unpredictabilities of politics. When he was briefly Foreign Secretary, the Prime Minister had to write the interim White Paper on European Community developments between June 1989 and January 1990. He said:
For the first time in years Community spending, including on agriculture, is under proper control.
The reason for that was increased resources. Until then, resources had lagged behind policy decisions, and that was the reason for the Delors package, which had been reluctantly accepted by the right hon. Member for Finchley. The report gives a generally good picture of the Community picking up momentum.
However, by the end of the year, the Berlin wall was down, the effect of agricultural imports from central and eastern Europe were being felt, and the drought in the United States was sending up world prices. On all those things, my views are contrary to those of the hon. Member for Thanet, South. Those uncertainties in the world argue for closer and closer integration in the Community.
I conclude as I began, by remarking on the ineffectiveness of the whole procedure. In my experience, it is often made worse by a tendency among Ministers simply to ignore questions that are asked of them. In a short contribution, I have asked only two or two and a half questions. I very much hope that they will be answered.

Mr. Christopher Gill: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for calling me so early in this important debate.
I have spoken regularly in debates on the reports of the Court of Auditors. What is significant about this evening's debate is that there is a much greater attendance, which is most encouraging because many of us have been concerned about the lack of interest that the House has shown in these important matters.
The other feature of the debate which I welcome very much is the invitation of my hon. Friend the Minister to make suggestions about how affairs in the Community can be better controlled and organised. I want to make suggestions on three subjects—the unsatisfactory nature of the division of responsibilities within the European Community, the unsatisfactory systems that are represented by some of the European policies, and the sheer unintelligibility of much Euro-jargon.
On the division of responsibility, I quote from the Court of Auditors' report:
Management of numerous important areas of the Community finances is shared between the administrations of the member states and the Commission.
I suggest to my hon. Friend that in that division of responsibility there is the classic recipe for confusion, disaster and total lack of control. There is too much opportunity always to leave it to the other chap to do what needs to be done.
The report is valuable, important and excellent. As my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) has pointed out, it contrasts very much with the auditors' report that we in commerce would expect to see. One only has to flick through the pages of the report to find criticism after criticism about the way in which the finances of the Community are organised. The report is littered with phrases like:
The system of budgetary and financial management in force needs to be improved";
the accounting and internal control shortcomings";

and
More rigorous financial management by the Commission would provide better information".
There is much criticism in the report. One looks hard to find any reference to things that the Commission is doing efficiently and with probity.
With regard to systems, I am sure that many hon. Members will understand that the systems defy reasonable control. I have on previous occasions in the House talked about fraud in agricultural products. No number of accountants and no army of inspectors could control the abuse and fraud involved in commodities because they cannot recognise what they are looking at. That is a mat ter of simple practicality, but it goes well beyond that.
I was interested to read the supplementary explanatory memorandum on the management and control of export refunds by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, in which he states:
the level of subsidy has been determined with insufficient regard to the need for economy; the Commission's arrangement of export subsidies has not satisfied the requirements of public accountability; and national controls provide an insufficient safeguard against fraud.
On the implications of this, he says:
The Government is concerned that the objectives of the refund system should be achieved as economically as possible and regards fraud against the Community budget as a serious problem which needs to be tackled quickly and effectively.
He welcomes the court's report,
which underlines the need for improved management of EC expenditure and greater effort to minimise fraud.
Those are all very welcome expressions of sentiment. So often in these debates we hear expressions of sentiment as to how we would like to see matters improved, and we utter platitudes along those lines; but so much of the fraud and the abuse can never be resolved unless we tackle the system that allows them to take place.
In a Committee Room in this House we have been considering the transport of live animals within the European Community. Part of the evidence submitted to us in Committee is that 31 bulls were exported from a market in the midlands for meat in Sicily. As a practical man involved in that trade, I cannot think of any legitimate reason why beef animals should be exported from the middle of this country to the island of Sicily to provide Sicilians with freshly butchered meat. I suggest that the only possible reason for the extremely long journey of those animals was to satisfy the fraudulent intent of, perhaps, the mafia.
Perhaps my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury would see whether something could be done to help all of us in the House to assist him and the European Community to get a better grip of the Community's finances. There is an important role for the House in scrutinising the many regulations and directives which come from Brussels. I am sure that other national Parliaments look to see what we are doing at Westminster to scrutinise such matters as are before us tonight. I am also sure that many hon. Members are deterred from looking closely at many things to do with the European Community simply because of the complexity of the legislation and of the detail put in front of us, the sheer incomprehensibility of much of it and the frustration that builds up as we feel that it is impossible to get to grips with this huge and monolithic bureaucracy.
In looking at the whole question of the European Community, we must not allow our idealism to blind us to realities; nor must we allow our innate common sense to be


subordinated to theory. Earlier today in the House we saw how an ideal or principle had gone awry simply because the practical difficulties were not fully recognised and were underestimated.
In our efforts to be so communautaire, to demonstrate that Britain will play a leading role in the councils of the European continent, passing many directives and regulations and participating in the intergovernmental conferences and other meetings, we must keep our feet on the ground.
Many of the complaints that are itemised in so much detail in the auditors' report arise because the system is so fundamentally flawed. Agricultural support spending is out of control. Fraud is endemic. What assurances can my hon. Friend the Minister give the House? Can he promise the House that the programmes in which fraud is endemic will be abandoned? Will the Court of Auditors' recommendations be implemented? Platitudes and promises will not do. In the final analysis, if there is no improvement, the House must be prepared to withhold funds.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I am not holding a flag for the Commission, but does not the Council of Ministers have responsibility to oversee the administration as carried out by the Commission? Is that not part of its powers under the treaty? I should like the Minister to elaborate on that.
It is no use hon. Members simply attacking the Commission. The Commission has fallen short and it is open to justifiable criticism, but the Council of Ministers has a responsibility. The Minister cannot answer for the Commission, but he can answer for the Council of Ministers, because he is part of that Council. Knowing the way in which the Common Market operates, we cannot expect the Minister to stand at the Dispatch Box and defend the Commission because he is not responsible for its workings. But, as a member of the Council, he is responsible for overseeing the administration carried out by the Commission, so he should be able to answer on that.
I should have thought that pro-marketeers, such as the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston), would be glad to have done with the evils and shortcomings of the Common Market, instead of trying to gloss over them. If the hon. Gentleman reads the document that the Minister has produced for us—on which I congratulate the Minister—he will see that it is a fair, perhaps even a biased, summary in favour of the market. Yet that document alone is a terrible overall indictment of the administration.
I agree with the hon. Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) that, if the books of any company were in the state that the books of the Common Market are in today, the directors would all be fired and the fraud squad would be called in. It is no joke that £5 million that should have gone to the needy has gone astray and that that has been glossed over. I have heard Commissioners boasting about what they are doing for the third-world countries. What could that £5 million have done to help people in their dire need? The House has a right to highlight that and to pay attention to what is really happening.

Mr. Cash: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that was only one of the examples that my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) produced? The £5 million is only the tip of the iceberg. If that sum is quantified in terms of the fraud taking place in the Community as a whole, the total sum is enormous. The situation has gone beyond the pale, and action must be taken.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. It would be impossible to highlight every example during this short debate.
Surely it is amazing that the Court of Auditors has continually to say to the Commission that the presentation of its accounts and of its administration has many shortcomings. Surely the Common Market should have its act together by now. It should be able to present an overall summary to the Court of Auditors. The summary that has been produced fails to differentiate between compulsory and non-compulsory expenditure. Accordingly, the auditors are in difficulties when they come to examine the books. They have to do considerable research in trying to carry out their duties. The Court of Auditors is to be commended.
Many of the members of the Court of Auditors are strong pro-marketeers. Some of them were members of the European Parliament and were committed to the Common Market, but the court is not biased. Although some of its members have the background that I have outlined, they are alarmed by what is happening. When the court draws attention to irregular carry-overs, the Commissions merely states that it is applying the rules. It adds that some flexibility is still required. Under the smokescreen of flexibility, the Commission excuses what it is doing.
Money should be returning into the coffers of the Common Market, but we find that the interest on arrears of payments of our own resources is not even being collected. The Commission is not collecting the money that should be coming back to the Community. Surely the House should be concerned about that. The document that the Minister has produced shows that we are getting into a sorry pass.
I have always been worried about the inadequate customs control of certificates. It is something that we know about in Northern Ireland. It seems that it is possible to obtain certificates to make repeated crossings of the border. It must be remembered that every crossing takes money out of the EEC's pocket. I am sure that the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber is as concerned about that as I am, he being a Scotsman. I am a Ballymena man, an area which is known as the Aberdeen of the north. We are told that there is no proper documentation and that the Court of Auditors cannot undertake proper scrutiny. That is alarming.
The court refers to serious weaknesses in the implementation of the levy system. Any Member who has farmers in his constituency will be worried about that. I am worried about slow payments. The court has highlighted the delays in processing requests for payments. Surely those who deserve to benefit from the subsidies should be paid on time. We should be trying to ensure sound financial management, so that they get their moneys when they are due.
I am alarmed by the offhand way in which the Commission seems to dismiss the matters to which the


Court of Auditors has drawn attention. It does not say, "The Commission is prepared to face these matters and to take steps to ensure that the deficiencies do not continue."
The time has come for the Council of Ministers to take the Commission to task, and to say, "It is in the interests of us all to get honesty and integrity into the way that the funds are expended." That would remove a great deal of current criticism, which would be in all our interests. I am not a Common Marketeer; I have always been anti-Common Market. However, it must face up to its responsibilities. It cannot continue to be dishonest; it must now start to be honest.

Mr. Charles Wardle: The hour is late. It is that time of day when the Whip fixes one with a baleful stare and asks whether one really wishes to make some comments. I shall be brief, and restrict my comments to three observations about the 1989 annual report and the functions of the Court of Auditors.
First, I wish to emphasise that the accounts are produced very late indeed. I expressed that concern when my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary allowed me to intervene in his speech. If the accounts are produced in December of the year following the year end, they are too late for the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament to enable that information to have any bearing on spending plans and decisions for the year that follows, even in a normal year. In a year when there has been some structural change in the Community—such as following German reunification, when five additional German Lander became part of the Community—the need for information from the previous year is most important. That is lacking. Although my hon. Friend said that the report was the principal means of scrutinising how money is spent on the Community's behalf, unless that information is delivered sooner, so that it can apply to the following year's budget process, the system can be of little use.
Secondly, the Court of Auditors has no teeth. Much political importance is attributed to its work, and it is certainly active. It produces many papers—for example, 13 in 1989 and 14 in 1990. However, there are no powers to demand remedial action and to enforce changes. That means that for all the virtuous pronouncements in its reports, there is no power in reserve to hasten the pace of change and to enforce budgetary control. With the volume and complexities of CAP spending and the voluminous growth of regional fund expenditure, that becomes doubly important.
My third point concerns the anti-fraud efforts, upon which hon. Members have already commented. A few weeks ago, on a Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee visit to Brussels, I had the opportunity to meet the Commissioner in charge of the budget, Mr. Schmidhuber. He made the fundamental point that, no matter what effort is made by the budgetary team and by the Court of Auditors, it depends very much on the efforts of the member countries if fraud is ever to be tackled. Even with an expert team of 30 staff, all their efforts will come to naught unless the Council of Ministers debates the matter in earnest and ensures that each member country makes a determined effort.
The report is a mine of information, and I cannot resist detaining the House for a few seconds to read from paragraph 118 of section 1:
The Commission regrets that it has no internal documentation on the general accounts at the moment. Over the last few years, priority has been given to the modernisation of computer applications … This effort entails a heavy workload, not only for computing depts but even more so for accounting depts … Since the same officials would also be responsible for compiling a manual of accounting procedures, it was therefore impossible to begin work before March 1990.
As hon. Members have already said, if that were to happen in the corporate world, there would rightly be fireworks.
Unless there is an effort to produce the accounts more swiftly, unless the Commission is given teeth, unless the Council of Ministers ensures that greater efforts are made, and unless fraud is combated at member state level, the production of the accounts will prove to be largely academic.

Mr. William Cash: Much has been made of the importance of budgetary discipline in the Community. The introduction to the annual report of the Court of
Auditors states:
the Court observes that, of the measures adopted to impose discipline on agricultural expenditure"—
which is by far the greatest proportion of the total—
those it examined have not, as yet, attained the desired level of effectiveness.
It continues—this is highly important—
The apparent control of agricultural expenditure is above all the result of a favourable situation on world markets."—
In other words, budgetary discipline hinged more upon favourable world markets than on the intrinsic methods employed to achieve it. That is not a very good start.
Furthermore, there is a reference in the introduction to the famous Delors report, that deserves a little explanation in the context of the intergovernmental conferences and the references to budgetary deficits and so forth in relation to economic and monetary union. Paragraph 1.52 states:
The Court considers that the first cases of implementation of the new rules on budgetary discipline are still a long way from management with 'due and proper care' and from the 'spirit of rigour' described when the Delors package was introduced in document COM(87)100 final of 15 February 1987".
In shorthand, that means that the application of the rules which have been given such an enthusiastic welcome within the Community—the Delors package—are clearly not working, or were not for the financial year ending December 1989.
In view of the enthusiasm with which some member states and the Commission have received the Delors report, we are entitled to insist that the Minister tells us whether he and the Government are satisfied with the way in which the Delors package is working, given the importance that we have attached to budgetary discipline.
As regards the European agricultural guidance and guarantee fund guidance measures and the general conclusions drawn from them, the court states:
Three years on"—
after the system was first put into effect—
the same shortcomings are evident: undefined objectives, vague expressions, dispersal of measures, lack of operational guidelines and lack of effective coordination of the various aspects of the common agricultural policy. At best, the measures financed under the structural policy result an fragmented, generalised financing of investment relating to agricultural or forestry activities.


In regard to the most critical questions facing the report —agriculture and budgetary discipline—at best it can be said that it gets two out of ten. That is not a criticism of the Court of Auditors—I am grateful that it has done such a good job in identifying these matters—but, we must go beyond the question whether the Court of Auditors has done a good job and consider whether the objectives of the budgetary arrangements are being implemented. If they are not—this report deals with the entire expenditure of the European Community—we are entitled to ask some serious questions about the viability of the system as a whole.
It is not good enough for my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to explain in accountancy terms, and in a sombre, melancholy, downbeat manner, what he thinks has occurred. We need vigorous criticism of the system from our own Government, to ensure that the aspect on which we lay so much emphasis—budgetary discipline—is delivered. As the Court of Auditors itself is so critical of the lack of budgetary discipline, we might have expected some comment from my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary along the same lines.
The report is full of examples of fiddling, fraud, waste, and extravagance—you name it, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and it is there. It is about time that we put our foot down. When my hon. Friend attends the Council to discuss the Community's budgetary arrangements as a whole, I hope that he will speak his mind and get them sorted out once and for all.

Mr. Maude: With the leave of the House, may I say that we are, sadly, drawing to the end of the debate, and I have been rebuked by hon. Members in all parts of the House for the way in which I approached it. I have been accused of being soporific, sombre, melancholy, and, inaccurately, by the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston), somnolent—I plead not guilty to that charge.
If I have been sombre and melancholy, it is because we are dealing with a sombre and melancholy subject. I am glad that no one accused me of not taking it seriously. It is a serious matter, and I am pleased that the House treated it as seriously as it did.
If I have any criticism of the debate, it is that those hon. Members who are enthusiastic about the idea of the European Community have a tendency to approach such reports in a spirit almost of apology. They suggest that, if a fault exists, it is that member states have denied the Commission the resources that it desperately needs to avoid waste and inefficiency. Later, I will refer briefly to resources dedicated to guarding against fraud.
With respect to the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber, the approach that I described is not the correct one to take. Of course we must ensure that member states, but the Commission as well, can monitor the situation properly, exact full value from the funds, and ensure that they are spent properly.
On the other side of the argument, some seek ammunition with which to lambast the Community, for which they have little sympathy. One is bound to admit that the report provides a rich arsenal of such ammunition.
However, an auditor's report tends, by its very nature, to highlight things that have gone wrong. Its purpose is to shine a spotlight on problems, and to point to remedies.
The faults that have been identified fall into two categories, in the way they have been addressed tonight. Into the first fall those that arise from a system that some of my hon. Friends argue is incapable of delivering a satisfactory outcome. Into the second fall the perhaps more remediable problems that arise because, although the system is satisfactory, its execution leaves much to be desired.
As an optimist, I do not believe that the systems concerned are incapable of improvement. If they have proper objectives, are properly managed and operated, and are rigorously scrutinised, I am confident that they are capable of producing satisfactory results.
However, it must be said that the report draws attention to some lamentable lapses. Some of them, as my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) said, are humorous, while others are deplorable. Important sums of money which have been voted and deployed for the relief of poverty in some of the poorest parts of the world have not made it to their destination. That is lamentable.
I assure the House that, when we debate the issue in the Finance Ministers Council on Monday, I shal, as British Ministers always do, make clear our views on the subject. If I can offer my colleagues a word of comfort, may I say that, as I attend Finance Ministers' meetings, I find increasingly that our view about the need for rigour is being echoed by our partners as——

It being one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion——

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): In the light of the earlier comments of the hon. Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken)——

Mr. Aitken: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Hon. Members: No.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 16, Noes 72.

Division No. 97]
[11.45 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Paisley, Rev Ian


Aitken, Jonathan
Skinner, Dennis


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Spearing, Nigel


Body, Sir Richard
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Cash, William
Taylor, Rt Hon J. D. (S'ford)


Gill, Christopher
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Gordon, Mildred



Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Mr. William Ross and


Nellist, Dave
Mr. Bob Cryer.




NOES


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)


Amess, David
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)


Arbuthnot, James
Carrington, Matthew


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Chapman, Sydney


Arnold, Sir Thomas
Chope, Christopher


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Fishburn, John Dudley


Boswell, Tim
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Bottomley, Peter
Franks, Cecil


Bowis, John
Freeman, Roger


Brazier, Julian
Goodlad, Alastair


Bright, Graham
Greenway, John (Ryedale)






Gregory, Conal
Patnick, Irvine


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Redwood, John


Hague, William
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Sackville, Hon Tom


Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)
Shaw, David (Dover)


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Hunt, Rt Hon David
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Hunter, Andrew
Stanbrook, Ivor


Irvine, Michael
Stern, Michael


Janman, Tim
Stevens, Lewis


Johnston, Sir Russell
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Jones, Robert B (Herts W)
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Thurnham, Peter


Kirkhope, Timothy
Twinn, Dr Ian


Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Waller, Gary


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Maude, Hon Francis
Watts, John


Miller, Sir Hal
Widdecombe, Ann


Mills, Iain
Wood, Timothy


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Yeo, Tim


Morrison, Sir Charles



Neubert, Sir Michael
Tellers for the Noes:


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Mr. Nicholas Baker and


Paice, James
Mr. David Davis.

Question accordingly negatived.

Main Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House takes note of the Annual Report of the Court of Auditors of the European Communities for 1989.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

Ordered,
That the Order [11th March], That the draft European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (Immunities and Privileges) Order 1991 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c., be discharged.—[Mr. Lennox- Boyd.]

European Bank for Reconstruction and Development

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Mark Lennox-Boyd): I beg to move,
That the draft European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (Immunities and Privileges) Order 1991, which was laid before this House on 8th March, be approved.
I shall be brief, but I must make a few introductory comments, as I have been requested to do so. The debate is about the European bank for reconstruction and development. I am delighted that the bank has chosen London as the location of its headquarters—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am glad that hon. Members of all parties join me in expressing that welcome.
Specifically, the debate is about the privileges and immunities which are necessary to fulfil our obligations under the agreement which has established the bank and its headquarters in London. The privileges and immunities give no more than is necessary for the effective operation of the bank in London. What I propose is standard practice for institutions of this kind.
The order needs to be formally made at the next meeting of the Privy Council on 20 March so that the headquarters agreement can be signed at the inaugural meeting of the bank on 15 April, which will be a most important occasion at which the Prime Minister, President Mitterrand and the governors of the bank will be present. The agreement will come into force on signature——

Rev. Ian Paisley: Will the hon. Gentleman assure the House that the order in no way gives any power to the bank over and above the internal affairs of our own banking arrangements in this country?

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: It gives no powers of that kind. I shall give some more details, and the hon. Gentleman can then judge them.
We had a general debate about the establishment of the bank last July when my right hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development informed the House that the Government would be presenting this order for approval once the negotiations for a headquarters agreement had been completed. That has happened, and the headquarters agreement has been laid before the House.
In the debate last July, the House discussed an order which gave effect to the immunities and privileges of the agreement establishing the bank. The order before the House today will revoke that 1990 order and replace it with fresh provisions which will consist of the provisions in the 1990 order and certain new immunities and privileges negotiated for those connected with the bank.
The privileges and immunities in the 1990 order were given by the House and by every member of the bank. The new immunities and privileges to which I shall refer relate to not the establishment of the bank but its siting in London. To recap briefly on the debate last July, the privileges and immunities debated then and now produced in this order include certain exemptions from duties and taxation for the bank and certain immunities from seizure of its property. The officers and employees of the bank are exempted from taxation on the salaries paid to them by the bank, although they will pay an internal tax for the benefit of the bank. They will be immune from suit and legal


process in respect of their official acts. Legal status is conferred on the bank by the order. That order is to be revoked and reincorporated in the new order with further provisions on which I shall touch briefly.
The further provisions relate to privileges and immunities which the House has not had chance to discuss before. They give effect to the draft headquarters agreement and result from the bank and its staff being located in London. They are complicated and, of course, I can give further details in response to any inquiry. Briefly, the privileges and immunities include immunity of the bank within the scope of its official activities from legal proceedings, subject to certain specified exemptions, and inviolability for the bank's premises.
Persons connected with the bank, including officers and employees, experts performing missions for the bank and representatives of members of the bank are granted varying privileges and immunities according to their status. However, those who are British citizens or permanent residents of the United Kingdom receive only the essential minimum privileges and immunities to enable them to perform their official functions.
All the proposals are common practice in institutions of this nature. I should add that the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments has drawn the attention of the House to two points on the drafting of article 6 of the draft order. That article regulates the inviolability of the bank's premises. The order before the House has been amended to meet the objections made by the Committee. I commend the order to the House.

Mr. George Foulkes: First, I thank the Minister for his careful and helpful introduction to the order and for his courtesy in explaining it to me informally before the debate. The Opposition join the Government in welcoming the location of this important institution in the United Kingdom and we greatly welcome its role and function. That welcome was extended in great detail by my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd).
However, it is most regrettable that the Government made something of a dog's breakfast of getting the order through the House. All credit must go to the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments for helping to sort matters out and to my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer), the Chairman of that Committee. However, the Opposition recognise the importance of getting the order to the Privy Council next Wednesday so that there will be no undue embarrassment when President Mitterrand and the Prime Minister take part in the ceremony later this month.
Therefore, we shall support the order, although there is a growing feeling among Opposition Members that the number of international organisations with immunities and privileges is growing rapidly. It is about the only growth industry in the United Kingdom, and we hope that the Government will keep a tight rein on it. I know that, in this instance, they have been cautious about the number of members of staff allocated privileges, for which I commend them. Notwithstanding those points, there are no substantial reasons why the order should not be

approved by the House. We do not oppose it, and we look forward to its safe passage through this House and the other place.

Mr. Bob Cryer: I shall make only a few brief remarks because, as both Front-Bench spokesmen said, the order has been dealt with by the Join Committee on Statutory Instruments, one of the less glamorous of the Select Committees of the House which does a useful and important job in scrutinising, not the merits of statutory instruments, but their technical proficiency. The original draft order was defective. Although it was authorised under the International Organisations Act 1968, the agreement establishing the European bank for reconstruction and development provided for a number of qualifications to the inviolability of the bank's premises which the order sets out to establish.
Section 6 of the agreement gave two qualifications. The first, 6.2, stated:
The Bank and the Government shall agree under what circumstances and in what manner any such official may enter the Premises of the Bank without the prior consent of the Bank in connection with fire prevention, sanitary regulations or emergencies.
Clearly, those are sensible qualifications to allow access to the bank and qualify the inviolability of the bank's immunity.
However, that section was not included in the first draft order, and after representations by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office withdrew the original order and relaid the order —incorporating that section—which we are considering tonight.
However, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office did not include article 6.3, which provides that
the bank shall allow duly authorised representatives of public utilities to inspect, repair, maintain, reconstruct and relocate utilities, conduits, mains and sewers within the Premises of the Bank and its facilities.
The argument that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office used was that, when the agreement was reached on the European bank for reconstruction and development, it was "understood"—the word used in its memorandum —that it was one of a class of provisions that imposed obligations on the bank exclusively under international law. I find it curious that inspection, repair, maintenance and relocation of utilities, conduits, mains and sewers within the bank's premises should be subject to international, not domestic law. I should have thought that sewers were very much a matter for domestic, not international, law.
Therefore, we have drawn the attention of the House to the instrument, which is noted on the Order Paper, not because of any specific headings under which we are required to report instruments to the House—for example, if they go beyond the Minister's powers or involve unusual use of powers—but on the residual power that we have to draw attention to the unusual use of an instrument, which we are doing.
The extract from the 14th report of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments is available in the Vote Office should any hon. Member wish to obtain it —several already have. I cannot imagine that there has been a huge rush to obtain it. However, it is available and, of course, in presenting a report to the House, we are


obliged to include the memoranda from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. I hope that the Minister can explain why sewerage in such cases is subject to international law. His reply will be interesting.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I am pleased to say that I think that I can provide an explanation. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) for his kind words. I am sorry if he or any of his colleagues suffered any discourtesy or inconvenience. It was unfair of the hon. Gentleman to suggest that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office was at fault. The hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) will know that the interpretation of legal drafting is not an exact science. The legal department accepted the alternative view of the Joint Committee and acted accordingly. It was a matter for debate, but, naturally, the department wished to afford the Joint Committee the courtesy of accepting its view and that view was incorporated. That is the reason for the delay and why the matter is before the House.
I shall now deal with the matters raised by the hon. Member for Bradford, South. We are affording diplomatic immunities to the bank. The hon. Gentleman spoke about the provision in article 6.3, in which we are breaking new ground in our agreement with the bank. By derogation, we are reducing the full diplomatic immunity that is normally accorded to diplomatic institutions. that part of the negotiations was hotly debated, but the Government's view prevailed. It was decided that it would be improper to incorporate that derogation in our domestic law because those who represented the bank and accepted the derogation felt strongly about the matter. They agreed to abide by the decision as a matter of international law, but did not wish to have this diminution of their diplomatic rights, as they saw them, incorporated in British law. They have undertaken to allow inspection. Emergency inspection is enshrined in article 6.2 and they have accepted the need for access for such inspection. However, they have not accepted the incorporation in British law of the need for general access by public utilities. As I said, they are happy to agree to it under international law. I hope that my explanation satisfies the hon. Member for Bradford, South.

Question put and agreed to.

British Rail

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Sackville.]

Sir John Stokes: I welcome this opportunity to discuss the performance of British Rail, and I am delighted to see in his place my hon. Friend the Minister for Public Transport.
Britain invented railways and built them all over the world. I have always preferred travelling by train to driving a car, particularly on today's crowded roads. Before the war, I lived near Hitchin on the old LNER line, and often went to see the Silver Jubilee thunder by. At that time, the trains to and from Hitchin were so punctual that one's watch could be set by them. I also remember the thrill of going to Paddington station en route to Oxford, and I remember the west country accents, the chocolate and cream coaches, the glorious engines and, of course, the station master in top hat and tails. Apprentices for the GWR had to go to Swindon to be approved. It was like joining a good regiment. The railways were privately owned, and the morale of the staff was high.
For the last 45 years, I have travelled on the Marylebone line. Initially, the steam trains were not too bad, and the trains alternated between Marylebone and Paddington. Since steam went out, the service has unfortunately deteriorated, with bad time keeping and many more stops at the stations. I realise only too well that this line has not suffered as much as some of the lines in the south-east of London about which there are so many scandals. However, the number and frequency of delays, the cancellations of services, the breakdowns of engines and signalling, about which there is little or no information, are innumerable. Even yesterday, the train that I had planned to catch from Marylebone left 20 minutes late.
Some year ago, I began corresponding with the then chairman of British Rail on all these matters. Replies were slow in coming in, sometimes written by a less senior official, and always, I am afraid, temporising and unsatisfactory. I had a long series of complaints about the appalling state of the car park, which I used regularly. One could easily have broken a leg on the rough ground, and at night the car park was either unlit or lit by only one, insufficient, lamp. Eventually, in exasperation, I asked to see the chairman, and after some delay, I was fobbed off with promises of a meeting that never took place. In the end, I heard no more about it.
I am bound to ask myself whether, if the railway system was not a monopoly, it would dare to treat its customers in this way. This leads me to believe that there must be something radically wrong at the top, and also with recruitment, training and promotion of the right people to the higher positions in British Rail. There seems to be no incentive for efficiency, and a lack of leadership at all levels. Let us imagine for a nightmare moment that our forces in the Gulf had been conducting themselves on the principles on which the railways are run. How different the result there would have been.
These weaknesses show up worse when a service breaks down or is cancelled. Unfortunately, I have seen only too many such incidents. No senior official ever appears on the scene. No one above a chargehand or, in Army parlance, a lance-corporal, ever appears. Where are the sergeants, let


alone the subalterns or more senior officers? All too often, no explanation of why the incident occurred is given, and we are not told how long it will last. If, in desperation, one telephones the railway centre, it often takes ages to get through, and before anyone replies. Even then, there is often no clear answer. Can one imagine this happening in one of our great private enterprise companies—for example, Marks and Spencer?
The situation is no better in my constituency. Halesowen now has no station, although there are two local stations nearby. Stourbridge is on the Birmingham to Worcester line, with a poor local service, old rolling stock, and often a lack of information when anything goes wrong. Recently, there has been a new name for the region in which I live—Network SouthEast. Although some stations have been improved and repainted, the whole idea of Network SouthEast seems to be a purely media and promotional one, with appalling stupid signs such as "Welcome to Little Snodgrass". What the customers want is not advertising expertise but a better service. The timing of most services is poorer because there are so many stops at stations.
Morale among the staff of British Rail generally is not good, although I still meet some marvellous railwaymen, with some of the pre-war ideals of giving a good service to the public. I usually find that the booking clerks are good and give a better service than one often gets at a post office counter.
The whole organisation needs much better leadership and inspiration at the top. The railways have lost a huge freight business. Unless they improve, they will lose passengers as well. A recent survey published in the magazine Which? points out that two out of five rate the overall quality of service as fair or very poor, that around two out of five think that the service represents poor value for money and that more than two in three regular commuters think that the quality of service has deteriorated in the last three years.
The article also points out that British Rail does not guarantee that trains will start or arrive at the times specified in timetables and states that it is not liable for any loss or damage that might arise from delay. The same applies, of course, if any passenger service is suspended or discontinued.
Another great tragedy for the railways and, from an environmental point of view, for the country as a whole has been the loss of freight traffic. Business after business has lost confidence in the railways, due in large part to strikes and the poor service that is given. I was surprised to hear some time ago that even the Post Office now sends many letters and parcels by van instead of train.
With too many cars and lorries on our overcrowded roads, the railways had a golden opportunity which they have not taken. Why, for instance, can they not give a door-to-door freight traffic service, combining the carrying of goods by train with subsequent delivery by van? Really good service is given by the railways only when part of them is contracted out, as with the famous Orient Express.
The recent short spell of bad weather highlighted faults in the design of engines, rolling stock, lines and signalling, and in many cases the failure of management and staff as well. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Jopling) pointed out on

Monday in a question to the Secretary of State for Transport, huge investment is no use if British Rail cannot operate the equipment in bad weather.
I am reluctantly driven to the conclusion that the weaknesses in management are due largely to security of tenure and the certainty of pay, which have made many inclined to be slack in their approach to their duties. Above all, why do not top and middle management get out and about to see at first hand what is happening? I am sure that the chairman is a good man. I hope that he will have his own carriage, with supporting staff, attached to inter-city services or other main-line trains, so that he can get about personally and see as many stations as possible. Cannot managers model themselves on the best private enterprise companies, where the customer always comes first?
There no longer seems to be the pride that there once was in the railway profession. The sooner all the separate services are privatised the better. We shall then see better management, better equipment, including more electrifica-tion which is efficient and not harmful to the environment, better managers and staff, higher morale and a better deal for the customer. The distress, sadness and disappointment among travellers by train I have seen year after year. Surely under this Government we can do something to improve matters. Perhaps we should send someone over to France to see how the railways are run there. Above all, the stimulus of competition will work wonders, and British Rail will be freed from the protected and cosy position that it enjoys at present.

The Minister for Public Transport (Mr. Roger Freeman): It is a great pleasure to be in the House tonight to answer the debate initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Sir J. Stokes). In responding to my hon. Friend's comments—bearing in mind that I have many times been at the Dispatch Box in response to Adjournment debates at a late hour—and to the clear and cogent arguments that he has adduced this evening, perhaps he will allow me to respond in a rather more ad hoc fashion than my brief would otherwise have dictated. The style in which he has introduced the debate calls for perhaps a more direct reply than would otherwise be the case.
What my hon. Friend has described from his knowledge of British railways over the past 40 years is a comment on how society itself has moved. I would not dissociate myself from his analysis of the change in the railways since nationalisation. He described the situation in, I believe, 1946. I can just remember, as a very small boy aged four, going to Euston when travelling from London to the north-west; I can recall that great station and the thrill of the age of steam for young children. Those days are past. Euston station as my hon. Friend and I recall it is no more.
My hon. Friend said that we were dealing with a nationalised industry in which to some extent over the years a very large organisation had become driven by the need to supply certain services and perhaps had forgotten how to satisfy customer need. That was very much a theme of his speech. I believe that it is an accurate analysis. What is needed in the years to come is so to organise the structure of British Rail that it can and will respond more positively to the requirements of the customer.
There are parallels here with the national health service and perhaps with our education service. It must become more responsive to what the customer wants, the customer in this case being the travelling passenger. My hon. Friend has suggested privatisation as the solution. The Government would agree with him. It is surely right to place British Rail in the private sector. The Government have not reached any conclusions about the timing or the method of that—it is a very difficult task and one that must be done sensitively, with proper consultation and with proper forethought—but we are clear in our determination to move the railways back to the private sector from which they originated in their individual railway company form.
My hon. Friend referred to the management of British Rail. Today I have been out and about with the management of Network SouthEast, visiting stations in north Kent—Ramsgate, Margate, Ashford and Ton bridge —together with not only my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Jones) who, out of a great sense of loyalty, is still here at this late hour, but four other hon. Members who represent constituencies in Kent. We were accompanied by very senior management from Network SouthEast, which I thought was commendable. We stopped at the stations, and the management ensured that I spoke to passengers and staff. I commend the management of Network SouthEast on its preparations for my trip today and on the fact that it gets out and about.
My hon. Friend talked about freight. There has been a dramatic shift of freight from the railways to the roads. Just after the war, the majority of freight was carried by rail; now it is only a small minority, perhaps 10 per cent. That in part has been due to the growth of the motorway and trunk road system and the greater freedom and flexibility of moving freight by road for manufacturers and shippers. But the Government strongly believe that, in the next decade, British Rail, whether in the public or private sector, will face the great challenge of capitalising on the opportunities presented by the channel tunnel to ship freight long distances from the great regions of the nation through the tunnel to compete with other European nations in selling goods at a fine and competitive price.
The Government are assisting British Rail to make that difficult transition. British Rail must develop a system of intermodal terminals where manufacturers can move their freight by road to new terminals where train loads will be assembled and hauled a minimum of 200 miles through the tunnel to the waiting markets.
We believe that that is the right way for British Rail to recapture some of the freight that is now being carried on the roads. I envisage that freight from the new terminal at Normanton, near Wakefield in Yorkshire, will remove lorries from the M1, M25 and M20—roads that would otherwise have been used to carry individual lorry loads of freight through the tunnel. I hope that British Rail can capitalise on the construction of that new terminal and the new technologies available to British Rail, such as the new low-wheeled bogie wagons that will be able to run on both British and European gauges and through the tunnel and move more freight from the roads and on to rail.
My hon. Friend referred in passing to InterCity. which has experienced a remarkable transformation. In the past 10 years, the inter-city service has improved greatly. It is now one of the few railway systems—if one can describe that sector of British Rail as a system—that makes a profit. That is a remarkable achievement—a turnround in fewer

than five years. A great tribute should be paid to the management of InterCity and British Rail on that achievement.
The inter-city service, with its modern rolling stock, running on electrified lines—the east coast main line is a fine example of a new line with new rolling stock being delivered—represents an acceptable railway service in comparison with any other European railway service.
One of the great problems of Network SouthEast, which basically provides a service to commuters into the capital, is its Victorian railway lines which run under Victorian bridges. I saw Rochester bridge today and how narrowly constrained the railways were in bringing the commuters of Kent into London as a result of there being a single track in one direction over that bridge. The same is true of the great London terminals such as London Bridge, Waterloo, Victoria and Liverpool Street in particular, where the capacity might have been acceptable 50 years ago but today is unable to cope with the enormous increase in the patronage from which British Rail is now benefiting.
My hon. Friend might be interested to know that from 1970 to the mid-1980s patronage on Network SouthEast continually declined year on year. All of a sudden, in the mid-1980s, when prosperity returned to Britain, and particularly to the south-east, patronage began to rise at an impressive rate. Network SouthEast suffers now from the problems associated with overcrowding on many lines. Perhaps it is reaping the consequences of years of neglect in investment in rolling stock. It has undertaken, therefore, with Government support, a massive programme of reinvestment, and we are seeing the benefits of that on certain lines. For example, from Liverpool Street station to Southend, there is modern rolling stock. On the Northampton line, which runs up to my constituency from Euston, there is modern rolling stock. On some lines, however—I shall in conclusion have something to say about Marylebone station and the Chiltern lines—the service is not acceptable.
There are other lines where the service is not acceptable. I saw today Kent link and coastal lines where a great deal of new investment is needed, and we are providing it. The Kent link services—those services for inner London and London suburbs towards the south-east and Kent towns such as Dartford and Sevenoaks—will benefit from this autumn from the introduction of class 465 electric trains. I accept, however, that more needs to be done. On the Kent coastal services, out as far as Margate and Ramsgate, the introduction of the 471 Networker express trains will help matters. We are discussing with British Rail how quickly the process can be accomplished.
The Government acknowledge that British Rail has a long way to go in meeting the quality-of-service targets that we have set. My hon. Friend will know that the objectives vary between sectors and time of day. They can be summarised as roughly 90 per cent. of trains arriving within either five or 10 minutes of schedule time, depending on the service sector, 99 per cent. or more of trains running, 95 per cent. of telephone inquiries to be answered within 30 seconds, all carriages to be cleaned inside and out every day, sliding-door trains on Network SouthEast and regional railways to be no more than 135 per cent. loaded, with slam-door stock to be no more than 110 per cent. loaded and no standing for more than 20 minutes except by choice. My hon. Friend might say to me that even 135 per cent. or 110 per cent. loadings are


unacceptable. I look forward to the day when no passenger need stand on any British Rail train, but we must be realistic about the loadings of trains serving London surburbs. There are short-journey services into central London that inevitably will be crowded.
I conclude by answering specifically my hon. Friend's questions about the Marylebone line. In recent years, the service on the line has suffered because of aging, unreliable rolling stock and infrastructure. It has been clear for some time that a complete overhaul of the line and total replacement of the rolling stock would be necessary to provide the high standard of service that my hon. Friend and others using the line rightly demand.
The line is in the process of complete modernisation at a total cost of about £75 million. Marylebone station has been extensively modernised as part of a major redevelopment of the area. A new signal box is also now in place at Marylebone and the resignalling of the entire line has been completed. The total cost of the resignalling package, which includes associated track improvements, is about £12.5 million. The train fleet is also being replaced. The first of 89 new class 165 Neworker vehicles currently on order was handed over to Sir Bob Reid last month, and after trials should be delivered to the line next month. Some 165s will enter service in May, and the number will increase over the summer until the full fleet is in place in September.
The new passenger trains are some of the most technologically advanced in the world and should lead to much improved performance. They have been designed specifically to operate under driver-only operation, which

should significantly improve reliability. There is great difficulty in recruiting and retaining staff in the south-east. If fewer staff can be used safely, trains can be operated more reliably.
The new trains will also feature automatic train protection. The installation of ATP trackside equipment along the whole line is under way and should be completed later in the year. In addition to enhancing safety, the ATP scheme incorporates improved driver information systems that will provide advance information about track hazards.
I hope that my hon. Friend is pleased with that report on the Marylebone line. Improvements are in hand. I hope that, before his years as a Member of this honourable House draw to a close, he will be able, with me, to celebrate the introduction of that spanking brand new rolling stock on the Marylebone line. It would give me great pleasure if my hon. Friend would join me, at the appropriate time, in visiting the stations and the new trains in service. I cannot be precise about when that will be, but I hope that it will not be too long.
On the attitude of management and staff, my hon. Friend drew an analogy with the armed services—the esprit de corps, and the ability to communicate not only between the officers and the other ranks but with the passengers—the friends, not the enemies, of the railway. I believe firmly that my hon. Friend is right in saying that privatisation will help to bring the railways closer to the customer, which is where they started from, where they should be and where, in due course, they will be.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at nineteen minutes to One o'clock.